Loading…

Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Background The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear. Questions/purposes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2012-01, Vol.470 (1), p.199-204
Main Authors: Lachiewicz, Paul F., Bolognesi, Michael P., Henderson, Robert A., Soileau, Elizabeth S., Vail, Thomas Parker
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43
container_end_page 204
container_issue 1
container_start_page 199
container_title Clinical orthopaedics and related research
container_volume 470
creator Lachiewicz, Paul F.
Bolognesi, Michael P.
Henderson, Robert A.
Soileau, Elizabeth S.
Vail, Thomas Parker
description Background The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear. Questions/purposes We therefore asked: (1) What is the risk of infection in revision knee arthroplasty with large bone defects reconstructed with porous tantalum cones? (2) What is the rate of osseointegration with these cones? (3) What is the rate of loosening and reoperation? (4) Is knee function restored? Methods We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had 33 tantalum cones (nine femoral, 24 tibial) implanted during 27 revision knee arthroplasties. There were 14 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.6 years. Preoperative diagnosis was reimplantation for infection in 13 knees, aseptic loosening in 10, and wear-osteolysis in four. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using the score systems of the Knee Society and followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.3 years; range, 2–5.7 years). Results One knee with two cones was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. One knee was revised for femoral cone and component loosening. There was one reoperation for femoral shaft fracture and one for superficial dehiscence. The mean Knee Society pain score improved from 40 points preoperatively to 79 points postoperatively. The mean function score improved from 19 points to 47 points. Conclusions Our observations suggest metaphyseal fixation with tantalum cones can be achieved. Longer-term followup is required to determine whether the fixation is durable. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3237984</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>911945971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhi3UChbaH8AFRb1wSvH4I4kvILSCthSpVQVSb5Y3mYBRYi92slr-PV7t8ilxssbvM6898xKyD_Q7UFoeRQClVE4BcqiqKldbZAKSVTkAZ5_IhFKqcsXg_w7ZjfEulVxItk12GIhCcqYm5GJqXHZl3GC6sc-m3mHM_ga_sA1m53ZpButdZl1S-nmHy-wfLmxc3f12iNlpGG6Dn3cmDg8nX8jn1nQRv27OPXJ9fnY1_Zlf_vnxa3p6mdeiqIacz1pRNIIjtFIUKFFIqEpjVNko0VJkxaxqOQfGGeWF4IKrEhsqDdKCylrwPXK89p2Psx6bGt0QTKfnwfYmPGhvrH6rOHurb_xCc8ZLVa0MDjcGwd-PGAfd21hj1xmHfoxapbUKqUpI5Ld35J0fg0vTJUhSCbxkCYI1VAcfY8D2-StA9Sonvc5Jp5z0KietUs_B6xmeO56CSQBbAzFJ7gbDy8sfuz4CnzKdOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>915051372</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Lachiewicz, Paul F. ; Bolognesi, Michael P. ; Henderson, Robert A. ; Soileau, Elizabeth S. ; Vail, Thomas Parker</creator><creatorcontrib>Lachiewicz, Paul F. ; Bolognesi, Michael P. ; Henderson, Robert A. ; Soileau, Elizabeth S. ; Vail, Thomas Parker</creatorcontrib><description>Background The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear. Questions/purposes We therefore asked: (1) What is the risk of infection in revision knee arthroplasty with large bone defects reconstructed with porous tantalum cones? (2) What is the rate of osseointegration with these cones? (3) What is the rate of loosening and reoperation? (4) Is knee function restored? Methods We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had 33 tantalum cones (nine femoral, 24 tibial) implanted during 27 revision knee arthroplasties. There were 14 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.6 years. Preoperative diagnosis was reimplantation for infection in 13 knees, aseptic loosening in 10, and wear-osteolysis in four. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using the score systems of the Knee Society and followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.3 years; range, 2–5.7 years). Results One knee with two cones was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. One knee was revised for femoral cone and component loosening. There was one reoperation for femoral shaft fracture and one for superficial dehiscence. The mean Knee Society pain score improved from 40 points preoperatively to 79 points postoperatively. The mean function score improved from 19 points to 47 points. Conclusions Our observations suggest metaphyseal fixation with tantalum cones can be achieved. Longer-term followup is required to determine whether the fixation is durable. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-921X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1132</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21465329</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods ; Cohort Studies ; Conservative Orthopedics ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Joint Instability - prevention &amp; control ; Knee ; Knee Prosthesis ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Osseointegration - drug effects ; Pain Measurement ; Preoperative Care - methods ; Prosthesis Failure ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Recovery of Function ; Reoperation - methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Sports Medicine ; Surgery ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Knee Society ; Tantalum - therapeutic use ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012-01, Vol.470 (1), p.199-204</ispartof><rights>The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011</rights><rights>The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237984/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237984/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21465329$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lachiewicz, Paul F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolognesi, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soileau, Elizabeth S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vail, Thomas Parker</creatorcontrib><title>Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?</title><title>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><description>Background The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear. Questions/purposes We therefore asked: (1) What is the risk of infection in revision knee arthroplasty with large bone defects reconstructed with porous tantalum cones? (2) What is the rate of osseointegration with these cones? (3) What is the rate of loosening and reoperation? (4) Is knee function restored? Methods We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had 33 tantalum cones (nine femoral, 24 tibial) implanted during 27 revision knee arthroplasties. There were 14 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.6 years. Preoperative diagnosis was reimplantation for infection in 13 knees, aseptic loosening in 10, and wear-osteolysis in four. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using the score systems of the Knee Society and followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.3 years; range, 2–5.7 years). Results One knee with two cones was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. One knee was revised for femoral cone and component loosening. There was one reoperation for femoral shaft fracture and one for superficial dehiscence. The mean Knee Society pain score improved from 40 points preoperatively to 79 points postoperatively. The mean function score improved from 19 points to 47 points. Conclusions Our observations suggest metaphyseal fixation with tantalum cones can be achieved. Longer-term followup is required to determine whether the fixation is durable. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Conservative Orthopedics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Instability - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osseointegration - drug effects</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - methods</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Reoperation - methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Knee Society</subject><subject>Tantalum - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0009-921X</issn><issn>1528-1132</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhi3UChbaH8AFRb1wSvH4I4kvILSCthSpVQVSb5Y3mYBRYi92slr-PV7t8ilxssbvM6898xKyD_Q7UFoeRQClVE4BcqiqKldbZAKSVTkAZ5_IhFKqcsXg_w7ZjfEulVxItk12GIhCcqYm5GJqXHZl3GC6sc-m3mHM_ga_sA1m53ZpButdZl1S-nmHy-wfLmxc3f12iNlpGG6Dn3cmDg8nX8jn1nQRv27OPXJ9fnY1_Zlf_vnxa3p6mdeiqIacz1pRNIIjtFIUKFFIqEpjVNko0VJkxaxqOQfGGeWF4IKrEhsqDdKCylrwPXK89p2Psx6bGt0QTKfnwfYmPGhvrH6rOHurb_xCc8ZLVa0MDjcGwd-PGAfd21hj1xmHfoxapbUKqUpI5Ld35J0fg0vTJUhSCbxkCYI1VAcfY8D2-StA9Sonvc5Jp5z0KietUs_B6xmeO56CSQBbAzFJ7gbDy8sfuz4CnzKdOQ</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>Lachiewicz, Paul F.</creator><creator>Bolognesi, Michael P.</creator><creator>Henderson, Robert A.</creator><creator>Soileau, Elizabeth S.</creator><creator>Vail, Thomas Parker</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?</title><author>Lachiewicz, Paul F. ; Bolognesi, Michael P. ; Henderson, Robert A. ; Soileau, Elizabeth S. ; Vail, Thomas Parker</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Conservative Orthopedics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Instability - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osseointegration - drug effects</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - methods</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Reoperation - methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Knee Society</topic><topic>Tantalum - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lachiewicz, Paul F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolognesi, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soileau, Elizabeth S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vail, Thomas Parker</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lachiewicz, Paul F.</au><au>Bolognesi, Michael P.</au><au>Henderson, Robert A.</au><au>Soileau, Elizabeth S.</au><au>Vail, Thomas Parker</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?</atitle><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle><stitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</stitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>470</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>199</spage><epage>204</epage><pages>199-204</pages><issn>0009-921X</issn><eissn>1528-1132</eissn><abstract>Background The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear. Questions/purposes We therefore asked: (1) What is the risk of infection in revision knee arthroplasty with large bone defects reconstructed with porous tantalum cones? (2) What is the rate of osseointegration with these cones? (3) What is the rate of loosening and reoperation? (4) Is knee function restored? Methods We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had 33 tantalum cones (nine femoral, 24 tibial) implanted during 27 revision knee arthroplasties. There were 14 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.6 years. Preoperative diagnosis was reimplantation for infection in 13 knees, aseptic loosening in 10, and wear-osteolysis in four. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using the score systems of the Knee Society and followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.3 years; range, 2–5.7 years). Results One knee with two cones was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. One knee was revised for femoral cone and component loosening. There was one reoperation for femoral shaft fracture and one for superficial dehiscence. The mean Knee Society pain score improved from 40 points preoperatively to 79 points postoperatively. The mean function score improved from 19 points to 47 points. Conclusions Our observations suggest metaphyseal fixation with tantalum cones can be achieved. Longer-term followup is required to determine whether the fixation is durable. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>21465329</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-921X
ispartof Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2012-01, Vol.470 (1), p.199-204
issn 0009-921X
1528-1132
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3237984
source PubMed Central
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods
Cohort Studies
Conservative Orthopedics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Joint Instability - prevention & control
Knee
Knee Prosthesis
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Osseointegration - drug effects
Pain Measurement
Preoperative Care - methods
Prosthesis Failure
Range of Motion, Articular - physiology
Recovery of Function
Reoperation - methods
Retrospective Studies
Sports Medicine
Surgery
Surgical Orthopedics
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Knee Society
Tantalum - therapeutic use
Treatment Outcome
title Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T17%3A05%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20Tantalum%20Cones%20Provide%20Fixation%20in%20Complex%20Revision%20Knee%20Arthroplasty?&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=Lachiewicz,%20Paul%20F.&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=470&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=199&rft.epage=204&rft.pages=199-204&rft.issn=0009-921X&rft.eissn=1528-1132&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E911945971%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-3bf46d43e1f546e5e45187aa97d94f0e26b8f331232036434397ed05ae0605c43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=915051372&rft_id=info:pmid/21465329&rfr_iscdi=true