Aim: Impaction bone grafting is an established technique for the restoration of bone loss at revision hip surgery. Preformed stainless steel meshes have been recently introduced to augment graft containment. We present our results of acetabular impaction grafting at a mean of 4 years, with particular reference to the use of preformed steel meshes. Methods: 72 consecutive total hip replacements (7 primary and 65 revision) in 69 patients underwent acetabular impaction grafting with morsellised fresh frozen allograft through a posterior approach. In 47 cases there were uncontained defects (46 segmental or combined deficiencies, one pelvic discontinuity) necessitating the use of a preformed steel mesh, secured with multiple small fragment screws to contain the impacted bone graft. All the operations were done by the senior author in a district general hospital. Results: At mean follow-up of 4 years (range 18 to 92 months), no case has been lost to follow up. The Merle d’Aubigne Postel hip scores averaged 5.3 (pain), 4.2 (walking ability), and 5.3 (range of movement). (Charnley group A -26 patients, group B -19, group C -24). There were no peri-operative deaths or deep infections. There have been no revisions for septic or aseptic loosening. There were 2 cases of early post operative dislocation which stabilised after closed reduction. One case of recurrent disclocation required cup revision. There was one case of radiographic loosening without cup migration. This patient remains pain free and there are no plans for revision. In all other cases, radiographs suggest graft incorporation, with no significant radiolucent lines, acetabular component or mesh migration. There have been no complications relating to the use of the preformed mesh. Conclusion: The results of this study are encouraging. By using preformed metallic meshes it is possible to manage all cases of acetabular loss, irrespective of severity, encountered during total hip replacement with acetabular impaction grafting

The major causes of revision total knee are associated with some degree of bone loss. The missing bone must be accounted for to insure success of the revision procedure, to achieve flexion extension balance, restore the joint line to within a centimeter of its previous level, and to assure a proper sizing especially the anteroposterior diameter of the femoral component. In recent years, clinical practice has evolved over time with a general move away from a structural graft with an increase in utilisation of metal augments. Alternatives include cement with or without screw fixation, rarely, with the most common option being the use of metal wedges. With the recent availability of highly porous augments, the role of metal augmentation has increased. Bone graft is now predominantly used in particulate form for contained defects with more limited use of structural graft. The role of the allograft-prosthetic composite has become more limited. For the elderly with osteopenia and massive bone loss, complete metal substitution with an oncology prosthesis has become more common. The degree of bone loss is a major determinant of the management strategy. For contained defects less than 5 mm, cement alone, with or without screw supplementation, may be adequate. For greater than 5 mm, morselised graft is frequently used. For uncontained defects of up to 15 mm or more, metal augmentation is the first choice. Bone graft techniques can be utilised in this setting, however, these are more time consuming and technically demanding with little demonstrated advantage. For larger, uncontained defects, newer generation highly porous augments and step wedges are useful. Large contained defects can be dealt with utilising impaction grafting, similar to the hip impaction grafting technique. Massive distal defects are expeditiously managed with oncology defects in the case of periprosthetic fracture and/or massive osteolysis particularly when combined with osteopenia in an elderly, low demand patient. Surgeons must be familiar with an array of techniques in order to effectively deal with the wide spectrum of bone defects encountered during revision total knee arthroplasty

The stemmed tibial implant has enabled the salvage of challenging situations of bone loss in primary knee arthroplasty. This ease of use has unfortunately led to the adoption of stemmed implants in situations where this may not be warranted. In general uncontained defects of less than 5 mm may be dealt with using cement fill techniques. Defect of less than 10mm require bone grafting techniques and those above 10 mm require stems and wedges. In the third category however long term results suggest that good results are only attainable in 65% of cases whether grafts or wedges are used. The use of intramedullary guides in this setting is re-addressed to allow the accurate placement of cuts enabling the use of pegged (or non-stemmed) implants. In addition with the advent of navigation this may be a special situation where non-stemmed implants may be selected over stemmed implants

Background. Cup migration and bone graft resorption are some of the limitations after acetabular impaction bone grafting (IBG) technique in revision hip surgery when used for large segmental defects. We asked whether the use of a metallic mesh may decrease the appearance of this complication. We compared the appearance of loosening in patients with a bone defect 3A or 3B according to Paprosky. Materials and Methods. We assessed 204 hips operated with IBG and a cemented cup according to Slooff et al between 1997 and 2004. There were 100 hips with a preoperative bone defect of 3A and 104 with a 3B. We used 142 medial and/or rim metallic meshes for uncontained defects. The mean follow-up for unrevised cups was 10.4 years. We detemined postoperative radiological cup position and acetabular reconstruction of the hip center according to Ranawat in both groups. We assessed the appearance of radiological loosening and resorption of the graft. Results. Postoperative cup position improved in both groups (p<0.001 for all parametres). Distance to the approximate center of the hip decreased from 23.5 to 8.5 mm. 8 hips showed radiological loosening in group with a bone defect 3A and 16 in group 3B. The survival rate for loosening at 15 years was for 83.2 +12% for group 3A and 72.5 + 12% for group 3B (Mantel-Cox, p=0.04). The survival rate when using mesh or not at 15 years for loosening was: No Mesh 89.1 + 14%, Medial mesh 84.9 + 12%, Rim 79.6 + 12%, Medial and Rim 53.9 + 22 % (Mantel Cox, p=0.008). Patients with a bone defect 3B and a rim metallic mesh had a higher risk for loosening (p=0.047; Hazard Ratio: 2.36, Confidence Interval 95% (CI) 1.01–5.5, and, p=0.026; HR: 3.7, CI 95%: 1.13–12.4, respectively). Conclusions. IBG provides an improvement of the reconstruction of the rotation of the hip centre in acetabular revision surgery. Although results are good for contained or medial large defects, hips with a rim large segmental defect may need other options for reconstruction of these challenged surgeries

Introduction. Reconstructing acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty can be challenging. Small, contained defects can be successfully reconstructed with porous-coated cups without bone grafts. With larger uncontained defects, a cementless cup even with screws, will not engage with sufficient host bone to provide enough stability. Porous titanium augments were originally designed to be used with cementless porous titanium cups, and there is a scarcity of literature on their usage in cemented cups with bone grafting. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed five hips (four patients – 3 women, 1 man; mean age 65 years) in which we reconstructed the acetabulum with a titanium augment (Biomet, IN, USA) as a support for impaction bone grafting and cemented acetabular cups (Figure 1). All defects were classified according to Paprosky classification. Radiographic signs of osseointegration were graded according to Moore grading. Quality of life was measured with the Oxford Hip Score. Results. At a minimum of one year follow-up, none of the patients required any further surgery for aseptic loosening or re-revision. The Oxford Hip Scores generally improved and two of the patients were very satisfied with the overall outcome of the surgery and would have undergone the surgery again for a similar problem. The patient that underwent bilateral acetabular reconstruction during a period one month, scored lowered than the other patients and was less satisfied with the outcome. Radiographs at the latest follow-up revealed incorporation of the augment with mean change in acetabular component inclination of less than 1° and cup migration of less than 5 mm in both horizontal and vertical axes. Discussion. Acetabular reconstruction using porous titanium augments as a support for bone grafting and cemented acetabular cups can be an effective way of managing uncontained structural acetabular defect, with biocompatibility and osteoinducive characteristics. The early results are promising but longer follow-up is required

Object: To determine whether moderate bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty can be corrected using an uncemented prosthesis combined with cancellous bone grafting. Methods and results: 23 revision total knee replacements for aseptic loosening or sepsis were undertaken by the senior author between May 1999 and August 2002. All cases involved bone loss of grades F2 and or T2 according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Classification (Engh 1998). Bone loss was treated with a mixture of morselized autograft, morselized allograft and bone reamings loosely packed into any contained or uncontained defects following the technique of Whiteside (1992). Uncemented pros-theses with long contact bearing stems were then inserted. All 23 cases were able to partially weight bear immediately postoperatively, indicating satisfactory early press fit. No cases of loosening or cases suspicious of loosening have been noted. Of the 23 cases 19 have been followed for at least 1 year. 18/19 showed consolidation of bone defects and in 1 case there was significant bone resorption under the tibial base plate due to stress shielding. Conclusion: This technique is successful in building up moderate bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty, therefore avoiding the need for excessive bone resection, large metal augments, mass allografts or custom prostheses

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiological results in patients who were managed by double metal augmentations in proximal tibial uncontained bony defects undergoing primary or revision total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We performed double metal augmentations in proximal tibial uncontained bony defects undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Out of total 14 patients, 8 patients (4 priamry arthroplasty, 4 revision arthroplasty), mean 61.3 (50–80) years, were available for review at least 5 years follow up. The average follow up period was 86.3(60–99) months. Range of motion, American Knee Society Score were evaluated pre- and postoperatively as a clinical values. Another clinical assessments undertaken at the final reviews, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), and Lower extremity activity scale (LEAS) were checked. Radiological results, involving presence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) > 1mm in width, and osteolysis at the block-cement-bone interface were taken under fluoroscopic images at postoperatively and annually thereafter. Results. At the final follow-up, range of motion was increased from 97.5° to 121.3° and American Knee society score was significantly improved from 30.4 to 92.6 (p=0.03) and functional score from 43.1 to 86.9 (p=0.03). At the final follow-up, average WOMAC score was 10(2–20), OKS was 40.5(33–47), LEFS was 55.8(34–75), and LEAS was 10.9(7–15). There was no broken or deterioration sign at between first and second metal block at radiographically. RLLs at the block-cement-bone interfaces under fluoroscopic images were examined in 3 knees, but didn't cause any failure sign such as osteolysis, or collapse, or instability at final reviews. Conclusions. The clinical and radiological evaluations showed that the double metal augmentations is a favorable and useful way to manage severe uncontained proximal tibial bony defects at least 5 years mid-term follow up period. Preoperative standing anteroposterior (AP) radiograph (Fig 1) shows severe uncontained proximal tibial bone defects, approximately 23 mm compared with unaffected lateral tibial condyle. AP view of fluoroscopy with medial double metal blocks (10 mm block + down sized 10 mm block) combined intramedullary stem at 60-month follow-up after primary total knee arthroplasty, demonstrating radiolucent line (white arrow) of 2.5 mm width bottom the block (Fig 2). AP view at 92-month follow-up indicating non-progressive stable radiolucent lines (white arrow) at same area without any radiographic failure signs and broken sign between first and second metal block (Fig 3)

Massive uncontained glenoid defects are a difficult surgical problem requiring reconstruction in the setting of either primary or revision total shoulder arthroplasty. Our aim is to present a new one-stage technique that has been developed in our institution for glenoid reconstruction in the setting of massive uncontained glenoid bone loss. We utilise a modified delto-pectoral approach to perform our dual biology allograft autograft glenoid reconstruction. The native glenoid and proximal femoral allograft are prepared and shaped to create a precisely matched contact surface, which permits axial compression to secure fixation. The surface of the glenoid is lateralised to at least the level of the coracoid. The central cancellous femoral allograft is removed and impaction autografting is performed prior to implantation of a glenoid base plate with 25-mm long centre peg. Two screws are inserted into the best quality native scapular bone available to ensure compression. A reverse shoulder arthroplasty is implanted. We have performed our dual-biology reconstruction of the glenoid in combination with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in 8 patients to date. The technique has been performed in the setting of massive uncontained glenoid defects without prostheses as well as in revisions from failed hemiarthroplasties and total shoulder arthroplasties. Our post-operative follow-up is now up to 32 months. CT scanning as early as 6 months demonstrates incorporation of the graft. There has been no evidence of loosening. None of our cases have been complicated by infection or peri-prosthetic fracture and there have been no dislocations. One patient sustained an acromial stress fracture at 9 months post-operatively after lifting a 100-pound gas cylinder. This was diagnosed on bone scan, had no impact on the construct and was managed in a sling for comfort. Another patient has developed Nerot grade I notching which substantially in all patients, with an average improvement of 6.6 on a 10-point scale. Our dual biology allograft-autograft reconstruction is a useful and elegant technique in the setting of massive uncontained defects of the glenoid, which permits the implantation of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We believe this technique to be reproducible and uses materials that are both readily available and familiar

The goals of revision arthroplasty of the hip are to restore the anatomy and achieve stable fixation for new acetabular and femoral components. It is important to restore bone stock, thereby creating an environment for stable fixation for the new components. The bone defects encountered in revision arthroplasty of the hip can be classified either as contained (cavitary) or uncontained (segmental). Contained defects on both the acetabular and femoral sides can be addressed by morselised bone graft that is compacted into the defect. Severe uncontained defects are more of a problem particularly on the acetabular side where bypass fixation such as distal fixation on the femoral side is not really an alternative. Most authors agree that the use of morselised allograft bone for contained defects is the treatment of choice as long as stable fixation of the acetabular component can be achieved and there is a reasonable amount of contact with bleeding host bone for eventual ingrowth and stabilisation of the cup. On the femoral side, contained defects can be addressed with impaction grafting for very young patients or bypass fixation in the diaphysis of the femur using more extensively coated femoral components or taper devices. Segmental defects on the acetabular side have been addressed with structural allografts for the past 15 to 20 years. These are indicated in younger individuals with Type 3A defects. Structural grafts are unsuccessful in Type 3B defects. Alternatives to the structural allografts are now being utilised with shorter but encouraging results in most multiply operated hips with bone loss. New porous metals such as trabecular metal (tantalum), which has a high porosity similar to trabecular bone and also has a high coefficient of friction, provide excellent initial stability. The porosity provides a very favorable environment for bone ingrowth and bone graft remodeling. Porous metal acetabular components are now more commonly used when there is limited contact with bleeding host bone. Porous metal augments of all sizes are being used instead of structural allografts in most situations. On the femoral side, metaphyseal bone loss, whether contained or uncontained, is most often addressed by diaphyseal fixation with long porous or tapered implants, modular if necessary. Distal fixation requires at least 4 centimeters of diaphyseal bone and in Type IV femurs, a choice must be made between a mega prosthesis or a proximal femoral allograft. The proximal femoral allograft can restore bone stock for future surgery in younger patients. The mega prosthesis which is more appropriate in the older population may require total femoral replacement if there is not enough diaphyseal bone for distal fixation with cement. Cortical struts are used for circumferential diaphyseal bone defects to stabilise proximal femoral allografts, to bypass stress risers and to serve as a biological plate for stabilising peri-prosthetic fractures

Aim: To determine whether moderate bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty can be corrected using an uncemented prosthesis combined with cancellous bone grafting. Methods and Patients: 40 revision total knee replacements were undertaken by the senior author between May 1999 and June 2004. 27 one stage revisions for aseptic loosening and 13 two stage revisions for infection. All cases involved bone loss of grades F1/2 and or T1/2 according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Classification (Engh 1998). Bone loss was treated with a mixture of morselized autograft, morselized allograft and bone reamings loosely packed into any contained or uncontained defects following the technique of Whiteside (1992). Uncemented prostheses with long contact bearing stems were then inserted. Patients were followed up prospectively with Oxford and HSS knee scores. Results: All 40 cases were able to partially weight bear immediately postoperatively, indicating satisfactory early press fit. No cases of loosening or cases suspicious of loosening have been noted. Mean follow up of 37 months with no patients requiring re revision, no persistent stem pain and no infection in the one stage revisions. 2 cases of infection in the 2 stage group are discussed, neither have required implant removal. Intraoperative and postoperative complications are discussed as well as range of motion, pain and patient satisfaction. In 39/40 cases bone stock has been restored. In 1 case there was significant bone resorption under the tibial base plate due to stress shielding. Conclusions: This technique is successful in building up moderate bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty, therefore avoiding the need for excessive bone resection, large metal augments, mass allografts or custom made prostheses

Introduction: To evaluate the medium-term outcome of patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with structural allograft for uncontained defects. Methods: We followed prospectively 50 patients undergoing 52 revision knee replacements with 66 structural grafts in three institutions. An independent investigator reviewed twenty-nine knees in 27 patients after a mean of 96.9 months. Results: Twelve knees were re-revised at a mean of 70.7 months. Two of these patients retained their allografts. Eleven patients died with their structural allograft and implants intact and were not awaiting revision at a mean of 93 months. Failure was defined as an increase of less than 20 points in the modified HSS knee score at the time of the review or the need for an additional operation related to the allograft. Thirteen knees were deemed to be failures giving a 75% success rate. Graft resorption occurred in five patients resulting in implant loosening. Four failed due to infection and non-union between the host bone and allograft was present in two. One patient with both knees grafted failed to gain a 20-point improvement. Survival analysis showed a 72% survival at 10 years. Clinically, the modified HSS score improved from a mean of 32.5 pre-operatively to 75.6 at the time of the review. Radiographic analysis of the surviving grafts showed no severe resorption, one moderate and two mild cases of resorption. Evaluation for loosening revealed one patient with a loose tibial component, while three patients had non-progressive tibial radiolucent lines. All four patients were asymptomatic. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated encouraging medium-term survival of allografts utilised for revision knee replacement in a group of difficult patients with massive bone loss

Because there are a number of complicating factors, total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed following acetabular fractures has a less favourable prognosis than when done for primary degenerative arthritis. Patients who have had ace-tabular fracture and present for consideration of THA need careful clinical and radiological assessment. Investigation should include AP and lateral radiographs, 45° inlet/outlet views, obturator and iliac obliques, Judet views and CT scan, with or without 3D reconstruction. There are various classifications defining whether the bone deficiency is contained or uncontained and the extent of the structural defect. Treatment options include autograft, allograft together with mesh, screws, plates, rings, cages, etc. It is probably preferable to undertake THA sooner (as soon as there is radiological evidence of incongruent articular surfaces) rather than later, as this reduces the delay between fracture and recovery from THA, and any inadequate reduction can be minimised or corrected. The surgical approach must allow adequate access for the intended reconstruction. Small contained or uncontained defects can be treated with cemented or cementless implants and limited grafting. Large defects require structural reinforcement, bone grafting, a retaining cage and, unless a custom-made implant is used, cemented fixation. Potential problems at the time of surgery include sciatic nerve injury (beware the ‘double crush syndrome’) obstructive hardware, heterotopic ossification, avascular necrosis of the acetabulum and occult infection. Patients who are elderly or who present with markedly impacted fracture, extensive abrasion or fracture of the femoral head, displaced femoral neck fracture, and extensive acetabular comminution in the presence of osteopoenic bone, may warrant acute management with THA. Early experience of THA in the treatment of selected acute fractures is encouraging. However, the clinical results of THA after fractures of the acetabulum are often disappointing, and there is no current evidence that open reduction and internal fixation improves the success of the subsequent THA. THA following acetabular fractures is a challenging procedure with a high complication rate. Appropriate investigation and preoperative planning reduces the risk of complications

Bone loss can be treated in one of two general ways. Missing bone can be replaced either with bone graft applied to the host bone or augmentations attached to the revision implants. The ideal treatment of bone defects during revision TKR surgery: 1) makes immediate full weight bearing possible; 2) provides longterm support for the implants; 3) Restores original bone stock. Bone grafts achieve these goals when the defects are CAVITARY. Therefore, bone grafts rather than metal augmentation devices are the surgical treatment of choice when these types of defects are encountered during revision TKR surgery. Although bone grafts may achieve these goals when the defects are SEGMENTAL, the results are uncertain and more difficult to achieve. Metal augmentations make possible immediate full weight bearing and provide reliable long-term support for revision TKR implants. When these augments are made of Tantalulm, a metal with 80% porosity, the restoration of bone stock is also possible. There are advantages and drawbacks to each approach. The advantages of bone grafts are that they: 1) restore bone stock; 2) are relatively inexpensive (especially if autogenous graft is used); 3) can be applied with relatively simple instrumentation; and 4) allow defects of a wide variety of sizes and shapes to be treated. The disadvantages of bone grafts are that they: 1) have limited application in large, segmental defects where structural support is necessary; 2) do not always unite predictably, particularly when the host bone is osteopenic or when angular deformities exist; 3) are shaped and inserted without the benefit of precise instrumentation; and 4) may require limited weight bearing or restricted activity for a period of time following surgery. The advantages of augmentation devices are that they: 1) can be manufactured in a wide variety of shapes and sizes; 2) provide immediate stable fixation; and 3) can be inserted using precise cutting instruments. Therefore, the indications for metal augmentation devices are: 1) uncontained defects (segmental) that require structural support for the knee implant; 2) knees with osteopenic bone or large angular defects; and 3) older patients in whom the importance of immediate mobilization and unrestricted weight-bearing is more important than the restoration of bone stock

From 1987 to 2001, 181 revision arthroplasties of the knee have been performed in our clinic: 162 aseptic and 19 septic loosenings. The most encountered conditions requiring revision include aseptic loosening, instability, surgical technical failure, infection and mechanical failure including polyethylene wear. In 122 cases we had a signiþcant loss of bone at the femoral and/or tibial side. The experiences of reconstruction in this group will be presented. For the reconstruction of the large contained and uncontained defects, structural allografts, bone chips and morselized bone have been used from our own bonebank (femoral heads). In all of these 122 cases we used at least a half femoral head up to þve femoral heads in very severe cases. To get a sufþcient exposure, a long tubercle osteotomy was necessary in 65% of the cases. A rectus snip was used in 11 cases. Primary stability is mandatory to get a good result. For that reason a very complete modular system is required, including extension rods and the possibility of posterior stabilized and (semi)constrained prosthesis. To obtain primary stability of the femoral component, at least one intact femoral condyle is necessary; for the tibial component at least 65% circumferential cortical support of host bone is needed. Of course there have been complications. Out of this group of 162 aseptic loosenings we encountered 19 major complications: infection 4, woundnecrosis 5 (gastrocnemius ßap 4, amputation 1), loosening of the tibial component 4, loosening of the tubercle osteotomy 3, patellaluxation 2, lesion of the popliteal artery 1. All of these cases have been reoperated: The 4 infected cases needed a multistage procedure: one patient with loosening of the tibial tubercle (traumatic) has been operated 3 times until good consolidation and reasonable function. The amputated patient (81 years old) walks around with crutches. The used technical procedure has proven to be very promising. In experienced hands there is almost always a solution for the loss of bone by allograft boneplasty. Only in the case of a major soft tissue problems, inadequate extensor mechanism or incurable infections, the alternative of arthrodesis should be considered. Revision arthroplasty of the knee is a continious technical adventure and should therefore be performed in specialised centers

The principles of acetabular reconstruction include the creation of a stable acetabular bed, secure prosthetic fixation with freedom of orientation, bony reconstitution, and the restoration of a normal hip centre of rotation with acceptable biomechanics. Acetabular impaction grafting, particularly with cemented implants, has been shown to be a reliable means of acetabular revision. Whilst our practice is heavily weighted towards cementless revision of the acetabulum with impaction grafting, there is a large body of evidence from Tom Slooff and his successors that cemented revision with impaction grafting undertaken with strict attention to technical detail is associated with excellent long terms results in all ages and across a number of underlying pathologies including dysplasia and rheumatoid arthritis. We use revision to a cementless hemispherical porous-coated acetabular cup for most isolated cavitary or segmental defects and for many combined deficiencies. Morsellised allograft is packed in using chips of varied size and a combination of impaction and reverse reaming is used in order to create a hemisphere. There is increasing evidence for the use of synthetic grafts, usually mixed with allograft, in this setting. The reconstruction relies on the ability to achieve biological fixation of the component to the underlying host bone. This requires intimate host bone contact, and rigid implant stability. It is important to achieve host bone contact in a least part of the dome and posterior column – when this is possible, and particularly when there is a good rim fit, we have not found it absolutely necessary to have contact with host bone over 50% of the surface. Once the decision to attempt a cementless reconstruction is made, hemispherical reamers are used to prepare the acetabular cavity. Sequentially larger reamers are used until there is three-point contact with the ilium, ischium and pubis. Acetabular reaming should be performed in the desired orientation of the final implant, with approximately 200 of anteversion and 400 of abduction (or lateral opening). Removing residual posterior column bone should be avoided. Reaming to bleeding bone is desirable. Morsellised allograft is inserted and packed and/or reverse reamed into any cavitary defects. This method can also be applied to medial wall uncontained defects by placing the graft onto the medial membrane or obturator internus muscle, and gently packing it down before inserting the cementless acetabular component. Either the reamer heads or trial cups can be used to trial prior to choosing and inserting the definitive implant. The fixation is augmented with screws in all cases. Incorporation of the graft may be helped by the use of autologous bone marrow. Cementless acetabular components with impaction grafting should not be used when the host biology does not allow for stability or for bone ingrowth. This includes the severely osteopenic pelvis, pelvic osteonecrosis after irradiation, tumours, and metabolic bone disorders. They should also not be used in the presence of pelvic discontinuity unless the structure of the pelvic ring has been restored with a plate, or specialised materials/porous metals are used. The challenge of reconstituting the acetabulum depends on the degree and type of bone loss. The principles of maximising host bone-implant contact and implant stability have borne fruit in our experience with cementless revision. The advantages of bone grafting in acetabular reconstruction include the ability to restore bone stock, to rebuild a normal hip center and hip biomechanics and to increase bone stock for future revisions

Introduction: Impaction bone grafting is a very useful technique in the armament of a revision hip surgeon. Traditionally fresh frozen allograft has been used for this technique. However there are concerns about the transmission of viral proteins and prions through this form of allograft.As a result irradiated bone graft has been favoured in some centres. There is no long term series describing the results of impaction bone grafting using irradiated bone. Method: We describe a series of 58 cases of acetabular revision surgery done at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre between 1995 and 2001 and followed up over a period of 48–90 months. The preoperative bone defect was graded by the Paprosky classification. There were 10cases of type 1,15 type 2a, 5 type 2b, 7 type 2c, 14 type 3a and 7 type 3c.50 cases were operated by the two senior surgeons and 8 were senior trainees.All uncontained defects were first contained by using a mesh or cages. The bone graft used was freeze-dried femoral head allograft, which was milled and used without defatting. The cases were followed up clinically and radiologically.Case notes were reviewed to gain information about the primary prosthesis, and operative details as well as the cause of the revision. All the cases were the first revisions. The radiological picture was evaluated for signs of incorporation, remodelling, loosening and migration of the cemented acetabular component. Clinical evaluation was from the last clinic visit and included the presence of pain, mobility status, range of movement and patient satisfaction. Revision was the end point of the study. Results: There were no cases which underwent loosening and all the cups were stable.1 case had recurrent dislocation and was revised.26 (44.8%) cases showed changes of incorporation, and 4 cases (6%)showed changes of remodelling.23 cases (39.6%) underwent femoral impaction grafting as well. Clinically the results were satisfactory with absence of pain in 38 cases (65%). Trochanteric pain was present in 3 cases. Conclusion: The results suggested that the results of impaction bone grafting on the acetabular side using irradiated bone graft are comparable to those with fresh frozen allograft and significantly better than those on the femoral side. This could be attributed to the compressive forces acting across the acetabular side as against the predominantly shear forces acting on the femur. The low percentage of remodelling remains a concern and warrants further studies

Uncontained acetabular defects with loss of superior iliac and posterior column support (Paprosky 3) represent a reconstructive challenge as the deficient bone will preclude the use of a conventional hemispherical cup. Such defects can be addressed with large metallic constructs like cages with and without allograft, custom tri-flange cups, and more recently with trabecular metal augments. An underutilised alternative is impaction bone grafting, after creating a contained cavitary defect with a reinforcement mesh. This reconstructive option delivers a large volume of bone while using a small-size socket fixed with acrylic cement. Between 2005 and 2014, 21 patients with a Paprosky 3B acetabular defect were treated with cancellous, fresh frozen impaction grafting supported by a peripheral reinforcement mesh secured to the pelvis with screws. A cemented all-polyethylene cup was used. Pre-operative diagnosis was aseptic loosening (15 cemented and 6 uncemented). The femoral component was revised in 10 patients. Post-operative course consisted of 3 months of protected weight bearing. Patients were followed clinically and radiographically. One patient had an incomplete post-operative sciatic palsy. After a mean follow up of 47 months (13 to 128) none of the patients required re-revision of the acetabular component. One asymptomatic patient presented with aseptic loosening 9 years post-operatively. Hardware failure was not observed. All patients had radiographic signs of graft incorporation and bone remodeling. There were no dislocations. The early and mid-term results of revisions of large acetabular defects with this technique are encouraging. Reconstitution of hip center of rotation and bone stock with the use of a small-size implant makes this technique an attractive option for large defects. Longer follow-up is needed to assess survivability

Aims

Large acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides including cost, availability, and operative processing. Bone graft substitutes (BGS) are an attractive alternative if they can demonstrate positive remodelling. One potential product is a biphasic injectable mixture (Cerament) that combines a fast-resorbing material (calcium sulphate) with the highly osteoconductive material hydroxyapatite. This study reviews the application of this biomaterial in large acetabular defects.

Uncontained acetabular defects with loss of superior iliac and posterior column support (Paprosky 3B) represent a reconstructive challenge as the deficient bone will preclude the use of a conventional hemispherical cup. Such defects can be addressed with large metallic constructs like cages with and without allograft, custom tri-flange cups, and more recently with trabecular metal augments. An underutilised alternative is impaction bone grafting, after creating a contained cavitary defect with a reinforcement mesh. This reconstructive option delivers a large volume of bone while using a small-size socket fixed with acrylic cement. Between 2006 and 2014, sixteen patients with a Paprosky 3B acetabular defect were treated with cancellous, fresh frozen impaction grafting supported by a peripheral reinforcement mesh secured to the pelvis with screws. A cemented all polyethylene cup was used. Preoperative diagnosis was aseptic loosening (10 cemented and 6 non-cemented). The femoral component was revised in 9 patients. Postoperative course consisted of 3 months of protected weight bearing. Patients were followed clinically and radiographically. One patient had an incomplete postoperative sciatic palsy. After a mean follow up of 40 months (24 to 104) none of the patients required re-revision. One asymptomatic patient presented with aseptic loosening 9 years postoperatively. Hardware failure was not observed. All patients had radiographic signs of graft incorporation and bone remodeling. There were no dislocations. The early and mid-term results of revisions for large acetabular defects with this technique are encouraging. Reconstitution of hip center of rotation and bone stock with the use of a small-size implant make this technique an attractive option for these large defects. Longer follow-up is needed to assess survivability

Bone grafts are a useful option to treat large posteromedial defects in tibia which are usually seen in medial condyle of the tibia in severe varus knees and lateral condyle in valgus knees. Contained defects can be treated using cancellous bone chips/graft. Uncontained peripheral defects may be treated using cement with or without screw augmentation for small defects. Large defects > 25 % of tibial plateau and > 5 mm deep may need structural bone graft or impaction bone grafting or metal wedges. The use of bone grafts is a viable alternative for the treatment of massive bone loss. For stable fixation of the components, we performed osseous reconstruction of tibial condyle using autologous structural bone grafts /impaction bone grafting. We used structural bone graft for 62 tibial defects in severe varus knees in 675 primary TKR. Grafts originating from the femoral condyles were fixed with screws. Morselised autograft supported by mesh, fixed with screws, were used in 8 patients. Bilateral bone grafting was done in 28 patients. Goal was to obtain firm seating of the tibial tray on a rim of viable bone along with rigid press fixation of the medullary stem. We observed an average 70-point postoperative increase in knee function according to HSS score. Graft incorporation was seen in all patients at average seven year follow-up. Autologous bone grafts can be successfully used for reconstruction of large osseous defects. It is available then and there, is biological and cost effective