Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: David H Sochart x
Clear All Modify Search

Kwaku Baryeh, Jeewaka Mendis, and David H. Sochart

  • The literature was reviewed to establish the levels of stem subsidence for both double and triple-tapered implants in order to determine whether there were any differences in subsidence levels with regard to the methods of measurement, the magnitude and rate of subsidence and clinical outcomes.

  • All studies reporting subsidence of polished taper-slip stems were identified. Patient demographics, implant design, radiological findings, details of surgical technique, methods of measurement and levels of subsidence were collected to investigate which factors were related to increased subsidence.

  • Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 papers of relevance were identified. The studies initially recruited 3090 hips with 2099 being available for radiological analysis at final follow-up. Patient age averaged 68 years (42–70), 60.4% were female and the average body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 kg/m2 (24.1–29.2).

  • Mean subsidence at one, two, five and 10 years was 0.97 mm, 1.07 mm, 1.47 mm and 1.61 mm respectively. Although double-tapered stems subsided more than triple-tapered stems at all time points this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), nor was the method of measurement used (p > 0.05).

  • We report the levels of subsidence at which clinical outcomes and survivorship remain excellent, but based on the literature it was not possible to determine a threshold of subsidence beyond which failure was more likely.

  • There were relatively few studies of triple-tapered stems, but given that there were no statistically significant differences, the levels presented in this review can be applied to both double and triple-tapered designs.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:331-342. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200086

Anna Bogdanova-Bennett, Amit Sagi, Vipin Asopa, Richard E. Field, and David H. Sochart

  • Approximately 60,000 cemented femoral stems are implanted in the UK each year with the majority being manufactured from stainless steel containing 10–15% nickel. Nickel hypersensitivity has been reported in up to 13% of the general population and there is a concern that nickel hypersensitivity might adversely affect the outcome of total hip replacement (THR). We reviewed the current literature on the potential link between nickel hypersensitivity and THR complications, and the usefulness of patch testing.

  • We conducted a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The level of evidence and the quality of the selected studies were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies tool, respectively.

  • Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 1852 patients who underwent primary or revision THR. All studies detailed skin patch testing and recorded prevalence of nickel hypersensitivity from 1.5% to 33.3%. Five studies reported a rise in Nickel hypersensitivity following THR, while four reported a decreased prevalence post-operatively. Eight studies concluded that metal hypersensitivity could have developed following THR, while seven studies did not support a link between metal hypersensitivity and THR complications. Four of the studies recommended routine patch testing pre-operatively, but three others concluded that routine patch testing was not indicated.

  • We have not identified a link between nickel hypersensitivity and THR complications, and the role of patch testing remains unclear. Further large-scale studies would be required to investigate this relationship and to clarify the role of patch testing in facilitating implant selection.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:825-838. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210051

Joshua B.V. Smith, Habeeb Bishi, Chao Wang, Vipin Asopa, Richard E. Field, and David H. Sochart

  • The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA.

  • This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

  • Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67–0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124).

  • The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1020-1039. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048

Habeeb Bishi, Joshua B V Smith, Vipin Asopa, Richard E Field, David H Sochart, and Chao Wang

  • There are advocates of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) templating methods for planning total hip replacement.

  • The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant size prediction when using 2D and 3D templating methods for total hip arthroplasty, as well as to compare the inter- and intra-observer reliability in order to determine whether currently available methods are sufficiently reliable and reproducible.

  • Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched to identify studies that compared the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating for total hip replacement.

  • Results were screened using the PRISMA flowchart and included studies were assessed for their level of evidence using the Oxford CEBM criteria. Non-randomized trials were critically appraised using the MINORS tool, whilst randomized trials were assessed using the CASP RCT checklist.

  • A series of meta-analyses of the data for accuracy were also conducted.

  • Ten studies reported that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of templating for total hip replacement. Six studies compared 3D templating with 2D templating, all of which concluded that 3D templating was more accurate, with three finding a statistically significant difference.

  • The meta-analyses showed that 3D CT templating is the most accurate method.

  • This review supports the hypothesis that 3D templating is an accurate and reliable method of preoperative planning, which is more accurate than 2D templating for predicting implant size. However, further research is needed to ascertain the significance of this improved accuracy and whether it will yield any clinical benefit.