View clinical trials related to Complications; Arthroplasty.
Filter by:The purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of the Vanguard 360 revision knee system utilizing offset on either the tibial component, femoral component, or both in terms of the restoration of mechanical alignment, clinical outcomes and survivorship.
The purpose of this study is to obtain long-term (10+ yrs) clinical and patient outcomes data on patients who received the Revelation Hip Stem prior to 2002.
The use of bloodless field is a helpful and important method in orthopedic surgery. The surgery can be done without interrupting bleedings, while keeping an exact overlook of the anatomy. However the method is not without risks, and complications of various kind may occur. One of the most important factors to minimise the risk of complications, is to keep the lowest possible cuff pressure. Previous electromyography (EMG) studies have indicated neuromuscular abnormalities after bloodless field among many patients which may lead to a prolonged rehabilitation period since they cause a postoperative weakness in the muscles. Although in these studies an unnecessary high tourniquet pressures were used and the EMG tests were made 6 weeks and 6 months after the surgery. With today's demand for fast rehabilitation, there is a need for better knowledge if lower tourniquet pressure in bloodless field surgery may lead to less neuromuscular abnormalities. Limb Occlusion Pressure (LOP) is the tourniquet cuff pressure required to occlude the blood flow. It accounts for a patients limb and vessel characteristics and the type and fit of the tourniquet cuff. The method has developed and is now simplified, by using an automatic (plethysmographic) sensor placed on the second toe on the involved limb, and after administration of anaesthesia, and immediately before limb preparation and draping it measures the limb occlusion pressure. When surgery starts, the cuff is inflated again; plus a safety margin based on the LOP pressure measured. The LOP method is still rarely used it has been seen as difficult and time consuming. The primary aim of this study is to investigate whether you can reduce the used tourniquet pressure with the new LOP measurement technique and still have a adequate bloodless field; and if this will lead to any clinical difference regarding postoperative pain. The secondary aim is to investigate the difference between the test groups concerning muscle function and wound healing and if these are remaining and of clinical importance. The third aim is to study how common neuromuscular abnormalities are after the use of bloodless field with lower cuff pressures and if there are any differences between the standard method and the LOP method.
Infection remains a difficult-to-treat complication of total knee arthroplasty. The gold standard treatment is two-stage removal of the prosthesis with later replacement of permanent implants. The first stage consists of removal of the infected arthroplasty components and the surrounding devitalized tissue, copious pulsed irrigation, and placement of a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer. This spacer typically is left in place six weeks, during which time the patient receives intravenous antibiotics. After the surgeon feels that the infection has been eradicated, or if the patient requires repeat debridement, a second operative procedure is performed. While the use of an antibiotic-loaded spacer is well accepted, whether the spacer should immobilize the knee (a so-called "static" spacer) or allow for range of motion (a so-called "articulating" spacer) is controversial. Proponents of articulating spacers argue that they prevent scarring of the musculature surrounding the knee resulting in easier reimplantation, improved long-term knee function, and improved range of motion. Proponents of static spacers argue that immobilization of the periarticular soft tissues aids in clearance of the infection and is simpler to fashion intraoperatively. While good results have been described with both methods, comparative trials have been conflicting as to whether spacer design alters knee function, operative time, and range of motion. Equipoise exists within the literature, and no randomized clinical trial has been conducted to evaluate this issue. The purpose of this study is to compare articulating and static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection complicating total knee arthroplasty through a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The goals of this trial are to determine the effect of spacer design upon eradication of infection, knee function, ease of reimplantation, and range of motion. The investigators hypothesize that articulating spacers will provide shorter operative times at reimplantation, while improving knee function and range of motion.
Infection remains one of the most difficult-to-treat complications of total hip arthroplasty. The gold standard treatment is two-stage removal of the prosthesis with later replacement of permanent implants.The first stage consists of removal of the infected arthroplasty components and the surrounding devitalized tissue, copious pulsed irrigation, and placement of a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer. This spacer is typically left in place six weeks, during which time the patient receives intravenous antibiotics. After the surgeon feels that the infection has been eradicated, or if a second debridement is required, a second operative procedure is performed. While the use of an antibiotic spacer is well accepted, whether the spacer should immobilize the hip (a so-called "static" spacer) or allow for range of motion (a so-called "articulating" spacer) is controversial. Proponents of static spacers argue that immobilization of the periarticular soft tissues aids in clearance of the infection and that these spacers are simpler to fashion intraoperatively. Proponents of articulating spacers argue that they improve hip function, prevent damage to the musculature surrounding the hip, allow easier reimplantation, improve hip function, and prevent dislocation following hip reimplantation. While good results have been described with both methods, comparative trials have been conflicting as to whether spacer design alters hip function, operative time, and dislocation rates. Equipoise exists within the literature, and no randomized clinical trial has been conducted to evaluate this issue. The purpose of this study is to compare articulating and static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection complicating total hip arthroplasty through a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The goals of this trial are to determine the effect of spacer design upon eradication of infection, hip function, ease of reimplantation, and dislocation rates. The investigators hypothesize that articulating spacers will provide shorter operative times at replantation while improving hip function and hip dislocation rates following hip reimplantation.
The purpose of this prospective clinical data-collection is to document the performance and clinical outcomes of the Vanguard™ Complete Knee System.