comment on: markmiller m, weiss t, kreuz p, rüter a, konrad g. partial weightbearing is not...

1
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Comment on: Markmiller M, Weiss T, Kreuz P, Rüter A, Konrad G. Partial weightbearing is not necessary after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011 Aug;35(8):1139-43 Mandeep Dhillon & Vikas Bachhal & Devendra Chouhan & Vishal Kumar Received: 17 October 2011 /Accepted: 3 November 2011 /Published online: 3 December 2011 # Springer-Verlag 2011 We read with interest the article by Markmiller et al. [1] that discussed an important issue regarding time of weight bearing after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Although we agree with the conclusion drawn from their observations, we ask clarification on several points in their methods. The authors mention that they used radiographs to measure subsidence and migration postoperatively, but as radio- graphs are prone to errors due to patient positioning and radiograph centring [2], were any specific steps taken to ensure minimal errors, and how was radiograph uniformity ensured during follow-up? Furthermore, all measurements were done manually by an orthopaedic surgeon. Were these measurements made on radiographs or digital images? Was any specific software used for making these measurements? There are several software packages available, such as Ein-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse (EBRA) that have been validated previously [2, 3]. These are available free and are easy to use. Although Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) provides the best method for making these measurements, its availability might be an issue at several centres. We would further like to know the impact of femoral anatomy (according to Dorr types) in choice of patients for cementless femoral stem and any possible difference in prosthesis migration amongst different femoral canal morphologies [4]. In our opinion, although this study makes important and valid inferences regarding the relation between weight bearing and subsidence or migration in THR, better methods could have been used to provide firmer conclusions. References 1. Markmiller M, Weiss T, Kreuz P, Rüter A, Konrad G (2011) Partial weightbearing is not necessary after cementless total hip arthro- plasty: a two-year prospective randomized study on 100 patients. Int Orthop 35(8):113943 2. Phillips NJ, Stockley I, Wilkinson JM (2002) Direct plain radiographic methods versus EBRA-Digital for measuring implant migration after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):91725 3. Biedermann R, Krismer M, Stöckl B, Mayrhofer P, Ornstein E, Franzén H (1999) Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement. Einzel- Bild-Röntgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis J Bone Joint Surg Br 81(2):26672 4. Taunt CJ Jr, Finn H, Baumann P (2008) Immediate weight bearing after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 31(3):223 M. Dhillon : V. Bachhal (*) : D. Chouhan : V. Kumar Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Department of Orthopaedics, Chandigarh, India e-mail: [email protected] International Orthopaedics (SICOT) (2012) 36:895 DOI 10.1007/s00264-011-1415-3

Upload: mandeep-dhillon

Post on 25-Aug-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Comment on: Markmiller M, Weiss T, Kreuz P,Rüter A, Konrad G. Partial weightbearing is not necessaryafter cementless total hip arthroplasty.Int Orthop. 2011 Aug;35(8):1139-43

Mandeep Dhillon & Vikas Bachhal &Devendra Chouhan & Vishal Kumar

Received: 17 October 2011 /Accepted: 3 November 2011 /Published online: 3 December 2011# Springer-Verlag 2011

We read with interest the article by Markmiller et al. [1] thatdiscussed an important issue regarding time of weightbearing after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Although weagree with the conclusion drawn from their observations,we ask clarification on several points in their methods. Theauthors mention that they used radiographs to measuresubsidence and migration postoperatively, but as radio-graphs are prone to errors due to patient positioning andradiograph centring [2], were any specific steps taken toensure minimal errors, and how was radiograph uniformityensured during follow-up? Furthermore, all measurementswere done manually by an orthopaedic surgeon. Were thesemeasurements made on radiographs or digital images? Wasany specific software used for making these measurements?There are several software packages available, such asEin-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse (EBRA) that have beenvalidated previously [2, 3]. These are available free andare easy to use. Although Roentgen stereophotogrammetricanalysis (RSA) provides the best method for making thesemeasurements, its availability might be an issue at severalcentres. We would further like to know the impact of femoralanatomy (according to Dorr types) in choice of patients for

cementless femoral stem and any possible difference inprosthesis migration amongst different femoral canalmorphologies [4]. In our opinion, although this studymakes important and valid inferences regarding therelation between weight bearing and subsidence ormigration in THR, better methods could have been usedto provide firmer conclusions.

References

1. Markmiller M, Weiss T, Kreuz P, Rüter A, Konrad G (2011) Partialweightbearing is not necessary after cementless total hip arthro-plasty: a two-year prospective randomized study on 100 patients.Int Orthop 35(8):1139–43

2. Phillips NJ, Stockley I, Wilkinson JM (2002) Direct plainradiographic methods versus EBRA-Digital for measuring implantmigration after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):917–25

3. Biedermann R, Krismer M, Stöckl B, Mayrhofer P, Ornstein E,Franzén H (1999) Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement ofmigration of femoral components of total hip replacement. Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis J Bone JointSurg Br 81(2):266–72

4. Taunt CJ Jr, Finn H, Baumann P (2008) Immediate weight bearingafter cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 31(3):223

M. Dhillon :V. Bachhal (*) :D. Chouhan :V. KumarPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,Department of Orthopaedics,Chandigarh, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

International Orthopaedi cs (SICOT) (2012) 36:895 DOI 10.1007/s00264-011-1415-3