“THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT MY 80-YEAR-OLD TEAM ‘CHICAGO GEEZERS’ WON THE WINTER NATIONALS FOR OUR AGE GROUP IN FT MYERS 11/6 – 11/8. I RAN FOR MYSELF AND HIT .710. THE BAD NEWS IS MY LEFT KNEE IS A BIT MORE ACHY NOW, EVEN WHEN I AM SLEEPING OR NOT PLAYING SOFTBALL. IT IS NOT REALLY PAINFUL BUT IT DOES ACHE MORE THAN IT USED TO. HOPEFULLY, AFTER A FEW MORE MONTHS WE WILL NOTICE A REAL IMPROVEMENT” J.H.
While growing up in Albany Park, 16-inch softball was a way of life starting at the Haugan Grammar School playground in early February and continuing until the football season in the late fall while basketball went on all year round. Weather permitting, we relocated to Jensen Park and later during high school years to Eugene Field Park, River Park and eventually the Hibbard School Yard. Softball teams with such names as the Torpedoes, Majestics, Olympians, Phaetons, Regular Fellows, Little Gents, Jovens, and Aristocrats, to name a few, competed for the highly coveted Ned Singer softball championship. Teams were comprised of teenagers representing Amundsen, Austin, Roosevelt Sullivan, Senn, Von Steuben High Schools and more. The soft ball leagues diminished in numbers after high school but several individuals continued playing wherever and whenever possible. I for one played until age 40, ending my career with a triple play and fractured finger at Union Park in the Hospital league. A new 16-inch clincher is hard as rock. There are few remaining players of that generation; I am privileged to serve as a treating physician to two. Jimmy, someone I met when he beat out a ground ball over 00 years ago, (I was a first baseman) practices law and continues to play. Though he had overcome many softball related injuries during his playing days, he was ready to quit three or four years ago out of embarrassment at the pinch runner until I intervened with a Cellular Orthopedic intervention and he regained the ability to beat out a ground ball. Jerry, middle row in the photo, second from the left, continues to play. Two years ago, also very concerned about his ability to run around the bases, he presented to my office seeking an alternative to a Total Knee Replacement for his arthritic knees. One picture says it all; he is already making plans for next year. In Jerry’s case, it took several biologic interventions; but he is a champion.
To schedule an appointment and learn about the biologic options for your joints call (847) 390-7666. You may visit my web site at www.Sheinkopmd.com.
Tags: arthritic knee, biologic intervention, cellular orthopedic, injection, joint pain, joint replacement, Orthopedic Surgeon, PRP, regenerative medicine, stem cell, Total Knee Replacement
Taken from article published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, April, 2014
The volume of total knee arthroplasties, including revisions (second procedures), in young patients is expected to rise. The objective of this study was to compare the reasons for revision and re-revision total knee arthroplasties between younger and older patients, to determine the survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasties, and to identify risk factors associated with failure of revision in patients fifty years of age or younger.
Perioperative data were collected for all total knee arthroplasty revisions performed from August 1999 to December 2009. A cohort of eighty-four patients who were fifty years of age or younger and a cohort of eighty-four patients who were sixty to seventy years of age were matched for the date of surgery, sex, and body mass index (BMI).
The most common reason for the initial revision was aseptic loosening (27%), in the younger cohort and infection (30%) in the older cohort. Cumulative six-year survival rates were 71.0%.
The survivorship of knee revisions in younger patients is a cause of concern, and the higher rates of aseptic failure in these patients may be related to unique demands that they place on the reconstruction. Improvement in implant fixation and treatment of infection when these patients undergo revision total knee arthroplasty is needed.
Restated, almost 30% of all Total Knee Recipients undergo a second procedure termed a revision by the sixth year following the initial replacement. The risk of failure is greater in patients under 50 years of age; but infection is the serious problem in those over age 50. When the revision is needed, the survivorship of the second procedure is again about six years with infection accounting for the majority of those failures. Regenexx has an ongoing statistical analysis of its Data Base of patients, mine included. To date, in over five thousand patients followed five years, there have been no deep infections. To date, approaching two years in my practice, not one of the several hundred knee patients has elected to undergo a Total Knee Replacement. Patients with stem cell interventions for knee arthritis are actively pursuing their sports interests. Total knee replacement patients who resume a sports interest are at risk of failure by six years from the procedure. A revision in stem cell parlance is a second Bone Marrow Aspirate harvesting and concentration at two to five years. A revision in total knee talk is an invitation to yet another failure and infection. Total Knee Replacement or try Stem Cells first?
Tags: Clinical Trial. Mitchell B. Sheinkop, joint replacement, Knee, Revision Total Knee Replacement, Total Knee Replacement