There is a paucity of available literature to guide the surgeon treating postoperative fractures of the greater trochanter after femoral component revision. Between 2009 and 2016, 133 patients underwent femoral component revision by the senior author utilizing a modular tapered fluted titanium stem. 17 patients died or had inadequate follow-up. Therefore, 116 patients were included in the final analysis. There were 58 males and 58 females with a mean age of 64 (range 23 to 91 years old). Clinical and radiographic data were analyzed for postoperative greater trochanteric fracture (GTfx). Mean clinical follow up was 21 months (range 3 to 77 mos). Age, BMI, preoperative diagnosis, comorbidities, reason for revision, use of Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy (ETO), fixation method of ETO, presence of prior hardware, post-operative trauma (falls), femoral component size and offset, change in leg length were analyzed to determine potential risk factors for postoperative GT fracture. There were 7 postoperative greater trochanteric fractures in 7 patients (6%). Of these, 1 occurred as a result of a postoperative fall, 1 occurred after dislocation, and 1 occurred after a fall with a subsequent dislocation. The mean time to diagnosis of the fracture was 10.7 weeks postoperatively (range one day to 37.4 weeks). 52 of 116 patients had their revision performed through an ETO. Of those, 6 had a postoperative fracture of the GT. The use of an ETO significantly increased the likelihood of postoperative GT fx (p=0.035). Regarding femoral component size, use of a longer proximal body (+10 or greater) was associated with an increased risk of postoperative GT fx (p=0.07). Two fractures were minimally (<1cm) or non-displaced and were treated non-operatively. Of these fractures, 1 united. The other fracture further displaced and resulted in recurrent instability. This was treated with excision of the fragment and a constrained liner. 5 fractures were displaced and were treated with ORIF. 3 were fixed with a cable grip device, 1 was plated, and 1 was treated with a cable grip device and a constrained liner. Of those treated with some form of ORIF, all 5 healed. Of those that underwent surgical fixation initially, 3 reported residual trochanteric pain and 1 patient had their hardware removed (trochanteric claw). 2 of these patients have a residual limp and require a cane for use as a gait aid. The patient treated non-surgically required a cane as did the patient that failed non-surgical treatment. Post-operative greater trochanteric fractures are a rare complication of femoral component revision. The use of an ETO significantly increased the rate of post of GTfx. The mean time to diagnosis of was 11 weeks. Displaced fractures of the greater trochanter treated with ORIF all healed, both cable grip devices and plates were effective. Residual limp requiring gait aids and residual trochanteric pain were common outcomes after fixation of these fractures despite successful union

Revision of the femur component in total hip arthroplasty using impaction bone grafting (IBG) was performed in 140 hips of 136 patients in our hospital. The mean age of the patients at the time of the femoral component revision was 72 years. The median of follow-up time was 80 months. 140 hips were operated with use of YU stem (Yamagata university stem, collared, not polished)104, Exeter stem 2, CPT 2, Restration 5, and others 27. The length of the stem was a regular stem 114, a long stem 26. The complications related to the revised hip consist of infection 5, dislocation 8, DVT9, fracture during operation 11. Four stems were revised due to infection and two due to loosening. YU stem is made of titanium alloy with collar, the surface of that stem is not polished and Ra is 0.27 μm. We started to apply IBG in 1994, there were no IBG instrument set and system available such as Exeter, CPT in Japan, so we had used YU stem. However, the result with YU stem was preferable and the implant was stable. Thus, we have been using YU stem. In the process, there have been a number of improvements in IBG instrument and system since we started using them. At first, all medullar cavity is filled with grafted bone up to proximal entry with moderate impaction. Along with guide pin, new medullar canal is made by drilling and insert stem tamper into the space to tighten the layer of impaction, then cement fixation of the stem is performed. This method made the operative time short and operative technique easy. There are several advantages of IBG technique we used. In revision THA, we can revise the stem with the same length of previous one again and exchange also a long stem to a regular length stem. In addition, the system make it possible to re-construct the case of distal medullar canal excessively filled with bone cement below stem, by digging about around 2 cm distally without need to remove all the cement. Severe bone atrophy and fragile of femur is also reconstructed by IBG. Impaction bone grafting technique with modified system has great merit to recover bone stock and to obtain implant stability after femoral reconstruction of revision surgery

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practiced technique for a variety of indications. In this study we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered stems.

From our prospectively collated database we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 – 2013 who had a minimum of two years follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-stem AMT high offset No 1. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment.

Ninety-seven patients matched the inclusion criteria. There were 50 Exeter and 47 C-stem AMT components. There were no significant differences between the patient demographics in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in OHS, WOMAC and SF-12 scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4mm in this cohort compared to 0mm in the C-stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group.

Our series shows promising long-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications.

Introduction. Revision of well cemented femoral components in revision THA can be technically challenging and time consuming. The cement in cement (CiC) technique addresses these issues. Results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions have not previously been reported. Objective. We present the clinical and radiological results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions with a minimum follow up of 5 years. Methods. Forty nine revision procedures were performed in 24 patients (10 males, 14 females). Seven patients died due to unrelated causes. The outcomes of all patients are known. Functional assessment were performed using the original Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d'Aubigne Postel(MDP) score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test. The level of significance was set at p=0.05. Radiographs were reviewed for signs of loosening at each visit. Results. The mean age was 67.5 years. Average duration of follow up was 81.7 months (range 24–240 months). Forty one revision procedures were performed for acetabular revision (the stem was removed to facilitate exposure), 6 were for revision of both components and 2 were isolated stem revisions. Each patient had undergone an average of 2 revision procedures. Four revisions were performed for infection. Mean preoperative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 38 (Range 3–44), 43 (Range 27–56) and 7 (Range 3–13) respectively. Average post-operative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 68 (Range 45–70) (p=0.0199), 31 (Range 12–56) (p=0.0397) and 13 (Range 4–18)(p=0.0423) respectively. There were no signs of loosening follow up. Conclusion. Cement in cement femoral revision is an effective technique for patients requiring multiple revisions of a well fixed cemented stem. It is associated with pain relief and significant functional improvement in the medium term

Introduction and Objectives: Severe proximal femoral defects are a major problem in femoral stem revision surgery. Various surgical techniques have been described that aim to resolve the deficit of bone stock: the Exeter technique or impacted allograft bone, long porous surface distal fitting stems, stems coated with hydroxyapa-tite, and modular stems with metaphyseal fixation. In 1987, Wagner presented a revision technique using a long distal fitting conical stem with excellent proximal bone regeneration. However, the Wagner stem presents two fundamental problems: subsidence and dislocation. Furthermore, it is a demanding technique that requires preoperative planning. Conical fixation makes adjustment of length and anteversion more difficult, as it is dif-ficult to change these parameters after impaction.

Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of the first 86 Wagner prostheses implanted at our centre.

Results: The reason for revision was aseptic loosening in 81.8% of cases. A morselised bone graft was used in the femur in 22% of cases. Average follow-up period was 6.5 years. Complications occurred in 33% of cases. Half of these complications were perioperative fractures of the femur, which for the most part required no additional treatment besides intervention during the operation. Of the 6.8% of implants that were loose, only 3 cases required surgical treatment. Subsidence occurred in 40.9% of implants, with a median of 13.5mm. Of the 40.9% of implants that sank, two-thirds sank more than 0.5cm. Average metal-bone contact was 27.57mm postoperatively, 39.9mm at one year postoperatively, and 50.38mm at final evaluation.

Discussion and Conclusions: The Wagner prosthesis has yielded good results in revisions with proximal bone defects. However, it presents a high rate of dislocation and subsidence, in relation to the technical demands of the procedure.

Introduction

Cement in cement revision with preservation of the original cement mantle has become an attractive and commonly practised technique in revision hip surgery. Since introducing this technique to our unit we have used two types of polished tapered stem. We report the clinical and radiological outcomes for cement in cement femoral revisions performed using these prostheses.

Purpose of the study: Locked implants have yielded favourable results for femoral bone reconstruction for revision total hip arthroplasty, but defective integration has also been reported due to insufficient bioactive coating. The purpose of this work was to evaluate a locked pivot with a two-third proximal hydroxyapatite coating.

Material and methods: From 1996 to 2007, 158 femoral implants (Linea™) were implanted for hip arthroplasty revision. The 143 cases with more than one year follow-up were reviewed (14 deaths, 1 lost to follow-up); 83 revisions for aseptic loosening, 41 periprosthetic fractures, 19 revisions in an infected context. Patients were reviewed retrospectively by a non-operator observer. These were older patients (mean age 68 years, range 31–93) and 36 patients had complex situations requiring at least two prior prostheses; 25% had severe grade 3 or 4 (SOFCOT) bone lesions and 59% diaphyseal damage.

Results: Clinical improvement was significant, the Postel Merle d’Aubigné score improved from 7.7 + 4.3 (0–17) to 15.6 + 2.2 (8–18) at mean 50 months (14–131) (p< 0.001). At last follow-up, 14 patients (10%) reported thigh pain and only seven pivots (5%) had not achieved Engh osteointegration (five with thigh pain two without). There were no fractures. There was on non-union of the femorotomy. According to the Hoffman index, femoral bone regeneration was significant at the metaphyseal and diaphyseal levels. Eighteen of the 19 infections cured, all periprosthetic fractures healed. The implant survival was 88.9% at 91 months (65–96.7%). There were five pivot replacements for non integration and/or thigh pain which resolved in all cases; there were no other pivot replacements. The quality of the metaphyseal and diaphyseal filling was predictive of the quality of the bone fixation of the pivot (p< 0.01).

Discussion: Compared with older models of locked pivots, this implant reduced the rate of thigh pain while allowing constantly satisfactory bone reconstruction. The metaphyseal and diaphyseal filling index is the main factor predictive of clinical and radiological success by favouring osteointegration. Maximal filling, obtained with a full range of implant diameters and lengths, contributes to this good result.

Introduction: T.H.A. revisions are constantly increasing: and it’s known that bone defects – expecially if severe like in rirevision cases – are the main problem to manage during the revision surgery. Since 1988, we have chosen to bypass the bone defects by using an “elastic” non-invading tapered stem (SL Wagner); morsel bone graft is rarely necessary, we never use a massive one. According to our philosophy in revisioning, stability should be obtained by a diaphysary anchorage as proximal as possible.

Methods: Our research concerns 150 cases of SL revision stems implanted from December ’88 to December ’91. The average age is 67 years old, complete clinical evaluation and survivorship analysis for the entire study cohort was performed from 8 to 12 years follow-up, radiographic analysis in 81 cases with 101 months avg. follow-up (min. 60 – max. 143).

Results and Discussion: 4 cases required rirevision; 20 patients deceased; 12 were lost to follow-up; 96 examinated.

Clinical evaluations show an average score of 78 (acc. to HHS); 82,3 percent of patients are pain free, while slight pain still persists in a 13,7 percent pain in a 3,9 percent.

The radiographic analysis has put into evidence only 1 case of mobilization, and suffering bone in 4 percent of cases; by contrast, 79,5 percent show astonishing endosteal bone formation.

Abstract. Background. Oxidized zirconium (OxZr) has been introduced as an alternative bearing for femoral components in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). It has a ceramic-like zirconium oxide outer layer with a low coefficient of friction. Early studies have found OxZr TKA to have a low incidence of early failure in young high demand patients. Currently no study has reported on the outcome of these implants beyond ten years. Objectives. The purpose of our study was to present an in-depth 15-year survival analysis of cemented Profix II OxZr TKA. Study Design & Methods. Data was collected prospectively and survival analysis undertaken with multiple strict end points. Complication rates were recorded and patient reported outcomes were measured. Results. 617 Profix II OxZr TKAs were performed over four years. Forty-nine patients underwent reoperation. Aseptic tibial loosening was the most common cause of failure (32.7%) on average occurring 2.8 years post primary procedure. There was one recorded failure due to loosening of the zirconium femoral component. Revision rate at 15-years was 6.38%. Cumulative survivorship was 91.52% with failure considered to be reoperation for any reason. WOMAC score improved in 86% of patients by year 1. The average score improved by 21.2 points and met the standard for minimum clinically important difference. Conclusions. This study presents the first 15-year survival analysis of cemented Profix II OxZr TKA. Our data supports current literature on the long-term survivorship of oxidised zirconium total knee replacements

Previous studies have reported excellent results with tapered, titanium alloy, porous plasma-sprayed components in patients undergoing uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to examine survival and clinical results at minimum 25-year follow-up. We reviewed all patients who underwent primary THA at our center through 1995 with a specific femoral component, the Mallory-Head Porous (MHP; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN). This device, marketed in the U.S. until December 2021, was essentially unchanged since its 1984 introduction, except the porous coating was continued circumferentially along the lateral aspect in 1987, a hydroxyapatite-coated option was offered in 1988, and an offset option was added in 1999 after the study period. Three hundred thirty-two patients (396 THA) had a minimum of 25-year follow-up. Mean age at surgery was 47.6 years (range, 21–70 years). Mean follow-up in non-failed patients was 28.7 years (range, 25 to 37 years). There were 31 femoral revisions (7.8%): 9 infection, 3 failure of ingrowth, 5 aseptic loosening, 8 osteolysis revised well-fixed, 2 periprosthetic fracture, 2 polyethylene wear with trochanteric avulsion, 1 component breakage, and 1 malalignment well-fixed. Kaplan-Meier survival with endpoint of stem revision for all causes was 94.8% (95% CI: ±0.9%) at 36.7 years, and survival with endpoint of aseptic loosening/failure of ingrowth was 98.7% (95% CI: ±0.5) at 36.7 years. Harris hip scores improved significantly from 43 preoperatively to 76 most recently. This tapered, titanium, porous plasma spray-coated femoral component continues to demonstrate high long-term survival with a low rate of femoral component revision for any reason or aseptic loosening/failure of ingrowth

Introduction. One of the main considerations in the revision TKR setting is deciding on the level of constraint to be utilized once the bone defects have been reconstructed. There is a fear that employing a maximally constrained insert could compromise long term results. We report on a consecutive series of full tibial and femoral component revisions all treated with a maximally conforming insert and followed for a minimum of 5 years. Materials and Methods. The study group consisted of 76 consecutive revision TKR in 76 patients where both the femur and the tibia were revised. 4 patients died and 6 were lost to follow up. Final cohort had an average age of 70 years, average BMI of 31 and there were 39 males in the group. Average time to revision was 7 years (range 1–10 years) and the reasons for revision included infection in 28, aseptic loosening 26, osteolysis and poly wear in 9 and 13 other. All were treated with the same revision system and an identical maximally conforming tibial rotating platform insert and followed for an average of 7 years (range 5–14 years). Results. one patient required additional surgery during the study period for a patella fracture. There were no manipulations. Average Knee Society Scores increased from an average of 55 to 89 at final follow up. No implants were loose or at risk of loosening and no knee sustained any mechanical complications related to the insert. Conclusion. Despite fears to the contrary, we did not identify any issues in using a maximally constrained insert in this consecutive group of revision total knee patients. It is unclear if the fact that these inserts were of a rotating platform design is important. In this group of revision TKRs, using the maximal level of constraint did not appear to negatively influence outcome at mid-term follow up

Introduction. Tibial component loosening is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include isolated tibial component revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons who are unfamiliar with the existing implant or have a “let's just start over attitude.” This option adds morbidity versus isolated tibial exchange. While isolated tibial exchange has lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging with regard to exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Methods. Patients revised for isolated aseptic tibial loosening were identified from 2012–2017. Patients with revision implants, or those revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. 161 patients met these criteria, 85 patients had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite having only a loose tibial component. Patient demographics as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes were recorded for each cohort. Results. Patient demographical information, including age, gender, and BMI were statistically similar between the two cohorts. Median follow-up was 3.5 years. Supplemental metaphyseal fixation was used in 22 patients in the isolated tibial cohort and 19 of the full revision cohort. There was a higher incidence of radiographic loosening in the full component revision cohort (10.5% vs. 6.0%; p=0.28). There were five failures requiring revision in the isolated tibial cohort, two for sepsis, one for repeat isolated tibial loosening, one for femoral aseptic loosening, and one for an extensor mechanism disruption. There were eight failures in the full component cohort, three for patellar avascular necrosis, two for sepsis, one for repeat tibial loosening, one for arthrofibrosis, and one for a postoperative wound dehiscence. Conclusion. Isolated tibial revision for aseptic tibial loosening has similar clinical and radiographic results when compared to full component revision. Although no intraoperative complications were identified when revising the femur, there is the potential for complications unique to femoral revision. Femoral component revision for isolated tibial loosening is unnecessary and should be avoided provided adequate ligamentous stability can be obtained. Keywords: Aseptic loosening, Tibial loosening, revision total knee replacement, total knee replacement. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

The purpose of this study is to report our updated results at a minimum follow-up of 30 years using a first generation uncemented tapered femoral component in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

BACKGROUND. The most common salvage of a failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is to remove both the femoral and acetabular resurfacing components and perform a total hip replacement. The other choices are to perform an acetabular or femoral only revision. A one or two piece acetabular component or a polyethylene bipolar femoral component that matches the retained metal resurfacing acetabular component is used. The considerations in favor of performing a one component resurfacing revision are maintaining the natural femoral head size, limiting the surgical effort for the patient and surgeon, and bone conservation. There are often favorable cost considerations with single component revision surgery. The reasons for femoral component revision are femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening and an adverse reaction to metal wear debris. Performing a femoral component only revision requires a well fixed and well oriented acetabular component. Acetabular revision is most often performed for an adverse reaction to metal wear debris or loosening. METHODS. 81 acetabular revisions and 46 femoral revisions were evaluated 4 to 14 years after surgery. 83% of patients had their initial surgery at outside institutions. The mean age was 46 and 65% of patients were women. A two piece titanium backed polyethylene component was used in 44 patients and a one or two piece metal component was used in 37. A dual mobility femoral prosthesis mated to a retained metal acetabular component was used for the femoral revisions and no conversions to a metal-on-metal total hip replacement were performed. We selected polyethylene acetabular components for patients with adverse reactions to metal wear debris if their femoral component was less than 48 mm or if there was no matching metal acetabular component available for their femoral component. We used dual mobility components for femoral loosening, femoral neck fractures and adverse reactions to metal wear debris in patients with well-fixed and well oriented metal acetabular components. Dual mobility components were also used if there are any concerns about the femoral component or in some older patients. We performed one component revisions rather than conversion to total hip replacement on 88% of patients presenting with failed resurfacing prostheses. RESULTS. There were no failures with polyethylene acetabular components. There were two failures due to ongoing adverse metal reactions in patients receiving metal revision acetabular components. There was one failure with a dual mobility prosthesis due to accelerated polyethylene wear from undetected edge loading on a retained worn metal acetabular component. There were two infections and one patient with continued pain. There were no dislocations. The average Harris Hip Score was 94. The UCLA activity score was 6 or greater for all but 4 patients. There were 6 revisions to total hip replacement. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 94%. 95% of patients rated their outcome as excellent or good. CONCLUSIONS. Failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses can be successfully revised without conversion to total hip replacement in most instances. A detailed knowledge of matching prostheses is necessary. Polyethylene prostheses for the acetabular or femoral reconstruction are often needed

Aims

When performing revision total hip arthroplasty using diaphyseal-engaging titanium tapered stems (TTS), the recommended 3 to 4 cm of stem-cortical diaphyseal contact may not be available. In challenging cases such as these with only 2 cm of contact, can sufficient axial stability be achieved and what is the benefit of a prophylactic cable? This study sought to determine, first, whether a prophylactic cable allows for sufficient axial stability when the contact length is 2 cm, and second, if differing TTS taper angles (2° vs 3.5°) impact these results.

Aims

This study reports the results of 38 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in 33 patients aged less than 50 years, using the JRI Furlong hydroxyapatite ceramic (HAC)-coated femoral component.

Cement-in-cement femoral component revision is a useful and commonly practised technique. Onerous and hazardous re-shaping of the original cement mantle is required if the new stem does not seat easily. Furthermore, without removing the entirety of the original cement mantle, the freedom to alter anteversion or leg length is difficult to predict preoperatively. We present data from in vitro experiments testing the compatibility of the top cemented stems according to UK registry figures (NJR 2013). This data augments preoperative planning by indicating which revision stems require minimal or no cement reshaping when being inserted into another stem's mantle. We also present the maximum shortening and anteversion that can be achieved without reshaping the original cement mantle

Structural bulk autografts restore the severe bone loss at primary hip arthroplasty in dysplastic hips and have shown to have good long term outcomes. There are only a few reports of revision arthroplasty for these sockets that fail eventually. We report on a series of such primary hips which underwent cemented revision of the socket for aseptic loosening and their outcomes. A retrospective review was performed from our database to identify fifteen acetabular revisions after previous bulk autograft. The mean age at revision was 53.9 years (range 31–72.1). The mean duration between the primary and revision arthroplasty was 12.4 years (range 6.6 – 20.3). All procedures were done using trochanteric osteotomy and three hips also needed the femoral component revision. All fifteen hips needed re-bone grafting at the revision surgery to restore the new socket to the level of the true acetabulum. Of these ten hips had morsellised impaction allograft, and the remaining five also needing a structural bulk allograft. Two sockets underwent re-revision at mean 7.5 years for aseptic loosening. One patient had a dislocation that was reduced closed. At a mean follow up of 5.7 years, one socket showed superior migration, but was stable and did not need further intervention. Two other sockets also showed radiological evidence of loosening, and are being closely monitored. The medium term results of cemented acetabular revision in this younger age group are satisfactory, with repeat bone grafting being required to restore the true acetabular position. Though the primary arthroplasty with bulk bone graft recreates the acetabular bone stock, significant bone loss due to the mechanical loosening of the socket needs to be anticipated in revision surgery

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised.

Introduction. During primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgeons occasionally encounter compromised bone and fixation cannot be achieved using a primary femoral component. Revision knee replacement components incorporate additional features to improve fixation, such as modular connection to sleeves or stems, and feature additional varus-valgus constraint in the post-cam mechanism to compensate for soft tissue laxity. The revision femoral component can be used in place of the primary femur to address fixation challenges; however, it is unclear if additional features of the revision femoral components adversely affect knee kinematics when compared to primary TKA components. The objective of this study was to compare weight-bearing tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics between primary and revision femoral component with the primary tibial insert for a single knee replacement system. The hypothesis of the study was that kinematics for revision femoral components will be similar to kinematics of the primary femoral components. Methods. Eight cadaveric knees (age: 59±10 years, BMI 23.3±3.5) were implanted with a primary TKA system (ATTUNE™ Posterior Stabilized Total Knee Replacement System). Each knee was mounted and aligned in the Kansas Knee Simulator (Fig. 1) [1]. A deep knee bend was performed which flexed the knee from full extension to 110° flexion, while the medial-lateral translation, internal-external, and varus-valgus rotations at the ankle were unconstrained. The femoral component was then replaced with a revision femoral component of the same TKA system, articulating on the same primary insert component, and the deep knee bend was repeated. The translations of the lowest points (LP) of the medial and lateral femoral condyles along the superior-inferior axis of the tibia were calculated. In addition, tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics were calculated for each cycle based on the Grood-Suntay coordinate system [2] [1]. The change in LP and patellofemoral kinematics from the primary to revision femurs were calculated. Student t-tests were performed at 5° increments of knee flexion to identify significant differences between the two implant types. Results. No significant differences were observed between primary and revision femur for both LP and patellofemoral kinematics (Fig 2,3). The revision femoral anterior-posterior lowest point translations were similar to that of the primary femur. Deviations in patellofemoral spin, tilt, and flexion were less than one degree throughout the range of flexion. Patellofemoral translations were less than .5 mm during mid-flexion and greatest deviations were observed during early flexion. Less than .5° deviation was observed in tibiofemoral VV and IE rotations. Discussion. Typical knee revision systems have compromised knee mechanics to improve femoral fixation, yielding poorer functional outcomes and high rates of reoperation [3, 4]. The primary and revision femoral components in this knee system have identical condylar articular geometry which explains the similarity in patellofemoral and tibiofemoral kinematics. Small difference in tibiofemoral kinematics could be a result of implant fixations using bone cement which slightly alters implant alignments between primary and revision surgeries. The revision femur resulted in similar kinematics and can be used during primary TKA when a stem is need for additional implant fixation without affecting the knee contact mechanics. For figures, please contact authors directly