Background. Ankle and hindfoot fusion in the presence of large bony defects represents a challenging problem. Treatment options include acute shortening and fusion or void filling with metal cages or structural allograft, which both have historically low union rates. Impaction grafting is an alternative option. Methods. A 2 centre retrospective review of consecutive series of 32 patients undergoing hindfoot fusions with impaction bone grafting of morselised femoral head allograft to fill large bony void defects was performed. Union was assessed clinically and with either plain radiography or weightbearing CT scanning. Indications included failed total ankle replacement (24 patients), talar osteonecrosis (6 patients) and fracture non-union (2 patients). Mean depth of the defect was 29 ±10.7 mm and mean maximal cross-sectional area was 15.9 ±5.8 cm. 2. Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis was performed in 24 patients, ankle arthrodesis in 7 patients and triple arthrodesis in 1 patient. Results. Mean age was 57 years (19–76 years). Mean follow-up of 22.8 ±8.3 months. 22% were smokers. There were 4 tibiotalar non-unions (12.5%), two of which were symptomatic. 10 TTC arthrodesis patients united at the tibiotalar joint but not at the subtalar joint (31.3%), but only two of these were symptomatic. The combined symptomatic non-union rate was 12.5%. Mean time to union was 9.6 ±5.9 months. One subtalar non-union patient underwent re-operation at 78 months post-operatively after failure of metalwork. Two (13%) patients developed a stress fracture above the metalwork that healed with non-operative measures. There was no bone graft collapse with all patients maintaining bone length. Conclusion. Impaction of morselised femoral head allograft can be used to fill large bony voids around the ankle and hindfoot when undertaking arthrodesis, with rapid graft incorporation and no graft collapse despite early loading. This technique offers satisfactory union outcomes without the need for shortening or synthetic cages

Introduction: Impaction grafting has become a popular technique to revise implants. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry reports its use for a third of all revisions. Yet, the technique is seen as demanding. A particular challenge is to achieve sufficient mechanical stability of the construction. This work tests two hypotheses: (1) Graft compaction is an important determinant of mechanical stability, and (2) Graft compaction depends on compaction effort and graft properties. Methods: Impaction grafting surgery was simulated in laboratory experiments using artificial bones with realistic elastic properties (Sawbones, Malmö, Sweden). Bone stock was restored with compacted morsellised graft, and the joint reconstructed with a cemented implant. The implant was loaded cyclically and its migration relative to bone measured. In a second study, morsellised bone of various particle sizes and bone densities, with or without added ceramic bone substitutes, was compacted into a cylindrical mould by impaction of a plunger by a dropping weight. Plunger displacement was measured continuously. Results: Initial mechanical stability of the prostheses correlated most strongly with degree of graft compaction achieved. Graft compaction to similar strength was achieved with less energy for morsellised bone with larger particles, higher density, or bone mixed with ceramic substitutes. Conclusion: Initial mechanical stability of impaction-grafted joint reconstructions depends largely on degree of graft compaction achieved by the surgeon. Compaction depends partly on the vigour of impaction, and partly on graft quality. Higher bone density, larger particle size and mixing with ceramic particles all help to facilitate graft compaction, giving a stronger compacted mass with less effort

Impaction grafting has been used for both femoral and acetabular defects quite successfully for over 15 years. Sloof, Ling and others have demonstrated consistent remodelling of the morselised allograft in both locations as well as long-term survivorship in a high percentage of difficult revisions. The application of this concept to the knee is somewhat novel, although there have been a few scattered reports, but bone loss in revision knee surgery can also be profound. Like its counterpart in the hip, it relies heavily on meticulous technique for success. Key aspects of the technique: the use of crushed cancellous fresh frozen allograft; tight packing of the graft; containment of the graft with mesh when necessary; and secondary packing with proper instruments to ensure stability of and load bearing on the graft. The need for polished tapered stems remains in question, as RSA techniques in the hip have indicated that motion is less commonly linked with stability. Subsidence, mechanically speaking, will not be tolerated as well at the knee as in the hip and will, in most cases, lead to loosening or gap mismatching with accompanying instability. Patients with greater than 50% loss of cancellous bone stock volume, tibial height at or below the fibular head, and/or distal femoral loss to or beyond the epicondyle(s) are ideal candidates. Augments usually have difficulty restoring the joint line in these massive loss cases and usually add nothing that can potentially serve as a foundation for new implants should yet another revision be necessary in a patient’s lifetime. Impaction grafting at the knee has the potential to augment the bone stock in such cases substantially

Impaction grafting is an excellent option for acetabular revision. It is technique specific and very popular in England and the Netherlands and to some degree in other European centers. The long term published results are excellent. It is, however, technique dependent and the best results are for contained cavitary defects. If the defect is segmental and can be contained by a single mesh and impaction grafting, the results are still quite good. If, however, there is a larger segmental defect of greater than 50% of the acetabulum or a pelvic discontinuity, other options should be considered. Segmental defects of 25–50% can be managed by minor column (shelf) or figure of 7 structural allografts with good long term results. Porous metal augments are now a good option with promising early to mid-term results. Segmental defects of greater than 50% require a structural graft or porous augment usually protected by a cage. If there is an associated pelvic discontinuity then a cup cage is a better solution. An important question is does impaction grafting facilitate rerevision surgery? There is no evidence to support this but some histological studies of impacted allograft would suggest that it may. On the other hand there are papers that show that structural allografts do restore bone stock for further revision surgery. Also the results of impaction grafting are best in the hands of surgeons comfortable with using cement on the acetabular side, and one of the reasons why this technique is not as popular in North America

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs:. (A). Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B). Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C). Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating preoperative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Porous metal cones or sleeves 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites; 8) Custom implants. Of these, use of uncemented highly porous metal metaphyseal cones in combination with an initial cemented or partially cemented implant has been shown to provide versatile and highly durable results for a range of bone defects including those previously requiring structural bone graft. The hybrid fixation combination of both cement and cementless fixation of an individual tibial or femoral component has emerged as a frequent and often preferred technique. Initial secure and motionless interfaces are provided by the cemented portions of the construct, while subsequent bone ingrowth to the cementless porous metal portions is the key to long term stable fixation. As bone grows into the porous portions there is off loading and protection of the cemented interfaces from mechanical stresses. While maximizing support on intact host bone has been a longstanding fundamental principle of revision arthroplasty, this is facilitated by the use of metaphyseal cones or sleeves in combination with initial fixation into the adjacent diaphysis. Preoperative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the preoperative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intraoperative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions, the degree of revision implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus, some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects, especially of the cavitary sort, may be well managed with minimal constraint

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A). Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture, This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B). Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C). Cup-Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup-cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morsellised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs: (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important; (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage; (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating pre-operative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the pre-operative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects especially of the cavitary sort may be well managed with minimal constraint

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Cemented THA has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long-term results. Although showing decreasing popularity in North America, it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in Europe and other parts of the world. Various older and recent studies presented excellent long-term results, for cemented fixation of the cup as well as the stem. Besides optimal component orientation, a proper cementing technique is of major importance to assure longevity of implant fixation. Consequently a meticulous bone bed preparation assures the mechanical interlock between the implant component, cement and the final bone bed. Pre-operative steps as proper implant sizing/ templating, ensuring an adequate cement mantle thickness, and hypotensive anaesthesia, minimizing bleeding at the bone cement interface, are of major importance. Additionally, femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

We report the use of contained impacted morsellized allograft to revise an aseptically loose, massive distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement in a 27-year old Caucasian lady. The prosthesis was inserted 4 years earlier, following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and resection of a distal femoral high grade osteosarcoma. Impaction grafting was used to restore bone stock and maintain femoral length. The patient remains disease-free, with excellent function, at two years after revision with no evidence of loosening and maintenance of bone stock. This is the first time this technique has been used in revision of a distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating pre-operative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the pre-operative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects especially of the cavitary sort may be well managed with minimal constraint. Highly porous metal augments designed to reestablish metaphyseal support and function in the manner of a prosthetic structural graft have been introduced or are under development by several manufacturers. Published reports of short term experiences have been encouraging for both the tibial side and for femoral augmentation. It remains to be seen whether these implants will provide the desired longer term durability

Restoration of bone stock is the single greatest challenge facing the revision hip surgeon today. This has been dealt with by means of impaction grafting with morsellised allograft from donor femoral heads. Alternatives to allograft have been sought. This study investigates the use of a porous biphasic ceramic in impaction grafting of the femur. Impaction grafting of the femur was performed in four groups of sheep. Group one received pure allograft, group two 50% allograft and 50% BoneSave, group three 50% allograft and 50% BoneSave 2 and group four 10% allograft and 90% BoneSave as the graft material. Function was assessed by measuring peak vertical reaction forces. Changes in bone mineral density were measured by DEXA scanning. Loosening and subsidence were assessed radiographically and by examination of explanted specimens. All outcome measures showed no statistically significant difference between the four groups after eighteen months of full function. Conclusion: When used as allograft expanders, Bone-Save and similar porous biphasic ceramics perform as well as pure allograft in impaction grafting of the femur

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating pre-operative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the pre-operative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects especially of the cavitary sort may be well managed with minimal constraint

Bone stock loss is a major challenge to the revision hip surgeon. Impaction grafting is frequently the preferred option for the surgeon when faced with bone stock deficiency. This retrospective study assesses a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision hip replacement with femoral impaction grafting during the period 1994–2001. Radiographic measurement for stem subsidence was carried out by 2 independent observers on pre-operative and post-operative radiographs at 6 months, 1 year, 18 months and 2 years following surgery. Graft incorporation and trabecular remodelling were also subjectively assessed. Irradiated bone allograft was used in all cases. Sixty-nine hips were reviewed. Radiographic analysis revealed graft incorporation in 38% of cases. However, there was no evidence of trabecular remodelling. Moderate subsidence (5–10 mm) occurred in 10 cases (14.5%), and massive subsidence (> 10 mm) occurred in 5 cases (7.2%). The survivorship with re-revision or need for further surgery as the end point was 92.8% at an average of 28 months. The results obtained in this study are less favourable than other reported studies of revision of the femoral stem using impaction bone grafting. The absence of the characteristic changes of graft remodelling reported in other series raises concerns that irradiated bone graft may be a significant factor in the post-operative progress

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the ENDO-Klinik experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2 – 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6 – 8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal to the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressively larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Postoperative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10 year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%. While survivorship for revision related to aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodelling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally, the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2–5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, and insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weightbearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%, while survivorship for revision as aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported about similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition, a long-term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients