Acements during 2005 to 2010 at two high-volume arthroplasty centers. A revision was defined as the replacement of at least one prosthetic component. In the descriptive analysis, polyethylene wear, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic infection, malalignment, instability, arthrofibrosis, extensor mechanism deficiency, periprosthetic fracture, and retropatellar arthritis were given as the failure mechanism associated with an early, intermediate, or late time interval (less than one year, one to three years, and more than three years, respectively) after the index total knee arthroplasty. Results: Three hundred and fifty-eight revision total knee arthroplasties were included. Of those revisions, 19.8% were performed within the first year after the index arthroplasty. The most common indications for revision, besides aseptic loosening (21.8%), were instability (21.8%), malalignment (20.7%), and periprosthetic infection (14.5%). Revisions due to polyethylene wear (7%) rarely occurred. In the early failure group, the primary causes of revision were periprosthetic infection (26.8%) and instability (23.9%). In the intermediate group, instability (23.3%) and malalignment (29.4%) required revision surgery, whereas late failure mechanisms were aseptic loosening (34.7%), instability (18.5%), and polyethylene wear (18.5%). Conclusions: Aseptic loosening, instability, malalignment, and periprosthetic infection continue to be the primary failure mechanisms leading to revision surgery. Contrary to previous literature, the results in the present study showed a substantial reduction in implant-associated revisions such as those due to polyethylene wear. Failure mechanisms that occur persistently early and in the intermediate term, such as periprosthetic infection, instability, and malalignment, remain common causes of revision surgery. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with suture anchor–based fixation techniques has replaced former open and mini-open approaches. Nevertheless, long-term studies are scarce, and lack of knowledge exists about whether single-row (SR) or double-row (DR) methods are superior in clinical and anatomic results. To analyze long-term results after arthroscopic RCR in patients with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and to compare functional and radiographic outcomes between SR and DR repair techniques at least 10 years after surgery. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Between 2005 and 2006, 40 patients with a symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear (supraspinatus tendon tear with or without a tear of the infraspinatus tendon) underwent arthroscopic RCR with either an SR repair with a modified Mason-Allen suture–grasping technique (n = 20) or a DR repair with a suture bridge fixation technique (n = 20). All patients were enrolled in a long-term clinical evaluation, with the Constant score (CS) as the primary outcome measure. Furthermore, an ultrasound examination was performed to assess tendon integrity and conventional radiographs to evaluate secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. A total of 27 patients, of whom 16 were treated with an SR repair and 11 with a DR repair, were followed up after a mean ± SD period of 12 ± 1 years (range, 11-14 years). Five patients underwent revision surgery on the affected shoulder during follow-up period, which led to 22 patients being included. The overall CS remained stable at final follow-up when compared with short-term follow-up (81 ± 8 vs 83 ± 19 points; P = .600). An increasing number of full-thickness retears were found: 6 of 22 (27%) at 2 years and 9 of 20 (45%) at 12 years after surgery. While repair failure negatively affected clinical results as shown by the CS (P < .05), no significant difference was found between the fixation techniques (P = .456). In general, progressive osteoarthritic changes were observed, with tendon integrity as a key determinant. Arthroscopic RCR with either an SR or a DR fixation technique provided good clinical long-term results. Repair failure was high, with negative effects on clinical results and the progression of secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. While DR repair slightly enhanced tendon integrity at long-term follow-up, no clinical superiority to SR repair was found.

The subacromial bursa has long been demolded as friction-reducing tissue, which is often linked to shoulder pain and, therefore, partially removed during shoulder surgery. Currently, the discovery of the stem cell potential of resident bursa-derived cells shed a new light on the subacromial bursa. In the meanwhile, this neglected tissue is gaining more attention as to how it can augment the regenerative properties of adjacent tissues such as rotator cuff tendons. Specifically, the tight fibrovascular network, a high growth factor content, and the large progenitor potential of bursa-derived cells could complement the deficits that a nearby rotator cuff injury might experience due to the fact of its low endogenous regeneration potential. This review deals with the question of whether bursal inflammation is only a pain generator or could also be an initiator of healing. Furthermore, several experimental models highlight potential therapeutic targets to overcome bursal inflammation and, thus, pain. More evidence is needed to fully elucidate a direct interplay between subacromial bursa and rotator cuff tendons. Increasing attention to tendon repair will help to guide future research and answer open questions such that novel treatment strategies could harvest the subacromial bursa’s potential to support healing of nearby rotator cuff injuries.

Background: The aim of this study was to categorize reasons for failure and to analyze the survivorship of multiple total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions. Methods: The study retrospectively evaluated all multiple TKA revisions performed between 2005 and 2015 at the authors’ institutions. Sixty-three patients (35 female, 28 male, age 64 ± 10 years, follow-up 55 ± 36 months) underwent a total of 157 re-revision TKA surgeries (range 2–5). The revision indications were divided up into main diagnoses. Survivorship was evaluated by mixed model analysis. Results: The main overall reason for re-revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (48%), followed by instability (12%), polyethylene wear (11%), malpositioning (8%), and aseptic loosening (8%). Survivorship shortened with an increasing number of revision surgeries (p = 0.003). While PJI was in 38% of all cases, the reason for the first revision, incidence increased constantly with the number of revisions (48% at second revision, 55% at third revision, 86% at fourth revision, and 100% at fifth revision, p = 0.022). If periprosthetic infection caused the first revision, patients showed an average of two more septic revisions at follow-up than patients with an aseptic first revision indication (p < 0.001). In 36% of cases, the reason for follow-up surgery in case of periprosthetic infection was again PJI. Conclusion: The probability of survival of the implanted knee arthroplasty is significantly reduced with each subsequent revision. Periprosthetic infection is the main cause of multiple revisions.