Bildgebung der aseptischen Femurkopfnekrose des Erwachsenen

[The importance of removing osteonecrosis during treatment of femoral head osteonecrosis]

Atraumatic femoral head necrosis (aFHN) in adults is estimated to be the leading cause of approximately 10% of all hip prosthesis implantations. Due to the relatively frequent occurrence of aFHN at a young age, the possibility of a joint-preserving intervention should be examined. This includes the classic "core decompression" and modifications based on it. There are different data on the success rates of this method. Reasons for treatment failure could include a lack of clearance of the necrosis zone. The clearance of the necrosis zone is taken into account by alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of aFHN. These are the "trap-door procedure", the "light-bulb procedure" and "advanced core decompression". The current state of knowledge on these procedures is reviewed in this keynote article. It is shown that the extensive excision of femoral head necrosis is of particular importance. None of the procedures mentioned can currently be recommended in preference over the others.

S3-Guideline non-traumatic adult femoral head necrosis

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of adult non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN; N-ANFH) within an estimated incidence of 5000-7000 cases per annum in Germany remains a challenge. Risk factors include steroids, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive medication, but a genetic predisposition has been suggested. Early diagnosis of this often bilateral disease process is essential for successful conservative or joint preserving surgical management. In this review, we present the update German consensus S3 guideline "diagnosis and management for N-ANFH" as a concise summary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review is based on the published literature from January 1, 1970 to April 31, 2013 (German and English language). Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses and relevant peer review publications. We identified a total of 3715 related publications, of which 422 were suitable according to the SIGN criteria, but only 159 fulfilled our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Clinical suspicion of N-ANFH mandates radiographic evaluation. If radiographs are normal MRI scans are recommended, which should be evaluated according to the ARCO-classification. Differential diagnoses include transient osteoporosis, bone bruise, insufficiency fracture and destructive arthropathy. Untreated, subchondral fractures commonly occur within 2 years, during which the risk for contralateral involvement is high-thereafter unlikely. Conservative management with Ilomedin and Alendronat can be tried, but other pharmacological or physical treatments are inappropriate. No specific joint preserving procedure can be recommended, but core decompression should be considered in early stages if necrosis is <30 %. In ARCO stages IIIc or IV total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be contemplated, which offers similar outcome compared to osteoarthritis. Young age is the main risk factor for higher revision rates after THA for N-ANFH.

How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view

Over the last 4 decades innovations in biomaterials and medical technology have had a sustainable impact on the development of biopolymers, titanium/stainless steel and ceramics utilized in medical devices and implants. This progress was primarily driven by issues of biocompatibility and demands for enhanced mechanical performance of permanent and non-permanent implants as well as medical devices and artificial organs. In the 21st century, the biomaterials community aims to develop advanced medical devices and implants, to establish techniques to meet these requirements, and to facilitate the treatment of older as well as younger patient cohorts. The major advances in the last 10 years from a cellular and molecular knowledge point of view provided the scientific foundation for the development of third-generation biomaterials. With the introduction of new concepts in molecular biology in the 2000s and specifically advances in genomics and proteomics, a differentiated understanding of biocompatibility slowly evolved. These cell biological discoveries significantly affected the way of biomaterials design and use. At the same time both clinical demands and patient expectations continued to grow. Therefore, the development of cutting-edge treatment strategies that alleviate or at least delay the need of implants could open up new vistas. This represents the main challenge for the biomaterials community in the 21st century. As a result, the present decade has seen the emergence of the fourth generation of biomaterials, the so-called smart or biomimetic materials. A key challenge in designing smart biomaterials is to capture the degree of complexity needed to mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) of natural tissue. We are still a long way from recreating the molecular architecture of the ECM one to one and the dynamic mechanisms by which information is revealed in the ECM proteins in response to challenges within the host environment. This special issue on smart biomaterials lists a large number of excellent review articles which core is to present and discuss the basic sciences on the topic of smart biomaterials. On the other hand, the purpose of our review is to assess state of the art and future perspectives of the so called "smart biomaterials" from a translational science and specifically clinical point of view. Our aim is to filter out and discuss which biomedical advances and innovations help us to achieve the objective to translate smart biomaterials from bench to bedside. The authors predict that analyzing the field of smart biomaterials from a clinical point of view, looking back 50 years from now, it will show that this is our heritage in the 21st century.