Purpose: Total knee arthroplasty is one of the most successful modern surgical interventions with excellent clinical outcomes and implant survivorship. Nevertheless, with the increasing numbers of primary knee replacements being performed and increasing life expectancy, the need for revision arthroplasty continues to grow and is expected to grow considerably in to the future. Stemmed implants are commonly used in revision knee arthroplasty to provide adequate support for the joint interfaces. Controversy exists amongst surgeons as to the relative merits of cemented versus uncemented stems in revision knee arthroplasty. Cementing stemmed components in revision knee arthroplasty surgery is well established, and has well documented success rates. Though in widespread use, there is little data published regarding the technique of cementing short stubby tibial stems in revision TKA. We describe modes of failure in knee arthroplasty, our technique for revision, and early outcomes for this patient cohort.

Method: This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients who have undergone revision knee arthroplasty. We evaluated the early clinical results looking for early failure in patients who have undergone revision knee arthroplasty using a short cemented tibial stem. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon in a single hospital. Baseline data was collected on all patients (age, gender, BMI, reason for revision, preoperative knee scores, details of surgery). Latest follow up clinical data, knee scores, and x-rays were evaluated to determine early patient outcomes and identify any implant or technical failure.

Results: Between 2003 and 2009, 77 of 241(32%) revision knee arthroplasty surgeries were performed using a short cemented tibial stem. This cohort of 77 patients included 49 females and 27 males. Eight knees (10%) were operated in two stages in the setting of deep infection. Average follow up for this group was 17 months (range 4 to 60 months). One patient developed a deep prosthetic infection requiring further revision surgery. No other patients to our knowledge have undergone further surgery and none have further surgery planned for mechanical failure or significant malalignment of the tibial prosthesis. No failure or early mechanical complication of using a short cemented tibial stem was identified clinically or radiographically.

Conclusion: We surmise the use of short cemented tibial stems in revision knee arthroplasty surgery is a safe and effective technique with potential advantages over longer cemented or uncemented stems. We have recorded satisfactory early outcomes, and continue to use this technique.

Introduction: Uncemented total hip arthroplasty has evolved significantly over the past two decades. During this period many implants with different shapes, designs and coatings have developed and are being used with variable results. We present a series of 100 uncemented hip arthroplasties using the Duraloc 100 series cup and Corail stems which have been in use at Merlin Park for the past 5 years and 1 year respectively. The CORAIL stem first introduced in 1986 has a triplanar wedge design for optimal metaphyseal fixation. The prosthesis is pointed in its distal part to allow centering in the medullary canal without cortical locking. The titanium stem is fully coated with a 150 micron thick layer of hydroyapatite. According to the Norwegian arthroplasty register the stem has 99.5% survival at 4.5 years (Havelin L1, Espheaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB).

The Duraloc 100 series acetabular cups are hemispherical, porous-coated implants that are press fitted to a cavity reamed 2mm smaller than the cup diameter.

Material and methods: Between January 2002 and September 2003 we carried out 100 uncemented THRs in 65 males and 35 female patients. Patients were deemed fit for uncemented hip replacement if they had good bone stock and had no co-morbid condition which might compromise bone quality. Preoperative work up was carried out to exclude any generalised diseases that might compromise bone quality, including bone density measurements where appropriate. Baseline WOMAC scores and Harris hip scores were performed pre-operatively and at latest follow up. Operative details were recorded along with post-operative complications. Patients were followed up clinically and radiologically for a period of 6 to 26 months.

Results: There were 65 male patients and 35 female patients. Average age in men was 62.5 years (range 40 to 85 years) and in women was 65 years (range 48 to 86 years). Four patients had rheumatoid arthritis, the rest had osteoarthritis. The average post-op hospital stay was 12 days. The mean WOMAC score increased from 45 pre-op to 87 at the latest follow up. The average Harris hip score also increased from 52 pre-op to 92 at latest follow up.

All procedures were either performed or directly supervised by the senior authors. Operations were performed through an antero-lateral approach, the femur was prepared first and a trial reamer was left in the femoral canal to minimise blood loss while the acetabulum was reamed. The average duration of surgery was 65 minutes (range 45 to 100 mins) and average intra-operative blood loss was 300mls (range 125 to 750mls). Intra-operative complications included 2 proximal femur stable split fractures, they were identified on table and fixed with circlage cables. Patients were allowed to mobilise partial weight bearing as tolerated. Complications included 4 deep venous thromboses, three superficial wound infections, one respiratory tract infection and one myocardial infarction. At the latest follow up there are no dislocations, no deep infections and no loosening of the cup or the stem.

Discussion: When considering new implants and techniques in arthroplasty long term outcome of studies are necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn regarding ultimate efficacy. This study however confirms that uncemented THRs using Duraloc cups and Corail stems is safe, involves minimal blood loss and gives good short term results. As there is no cement used, the duration of surgery is at least 15 to 20 mins less than an average cemented THR, which may be important when access to theatre is limited. The procedure is easy to learn and has well designed instrumentation. While there is no substitute for long term studies we feel that these early results are encouraging and justify continued work with the procedure in the context of a well designed prospective randomised trial comparing cemented and uncemented femoral components.

Introduction: The need to meet the demands for a hip replacement that will allow young patients to maintain a high activity level with the expectation of enhanced longevity has been the Holy Grail of modern orthopaedic practice for some time. Novel bearing surfaces and methods of component fixation have not as yet managed to sate this need. The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) offers a number of theoretical advantages for this demanding patient group. The metal on metal bearing couple facilitates fluid film lubrication and thus minimises wear and reduces osteolysis. The large head size enhances stability minimising the risk of dislocation during strenuous activity. Resurfacing anatomically restores hip geometry facilitating normal hip biomechanics. Finally, in the event of failure preservation of bone stock makes revision surgery less challenging.

In the absence of long-term outcome studies for the BHR these advantages remain theoretical. Furthermore, reports of good short and medium term results require corroboration at independent centres. This paper presents early results in a large series of patients in such an independent unit.

Patients and Methods: Between March 1999 and December 2001, 102 patients were deemed suitable for hip resurfacing. Patients were felt to be suitable if they were active, had no comorbid conditions that might compromise bone quality and were sixty five years old, although this was not an absolute figure. Pre-operative work up was performed to exclude generalised disease that might compromise bone quality, including bone density measurement where appropriate. Baseline Harris hip scores were performed preoperatively and at latest follow up. Operative details were recorded along with per-operative and other complications. Patients were followed up clinically and radiologically at an average of 13 months (range 3–30 months).

Results: There were 86 male and 16 female patients with an average age of 47 (range 28–66) for the men and 48 (range 21–55) for the women. Five patients had acetabular dysplasia as a primary diagnosis, four had AVN, one had post-traumatic arthritis and the remainder had primary osteoarthritis. There were no patients with inflammatory arthritis or severe dysplasia.

Average Harris hip score pre-operatively was 52 (range 25–65). This had improved to 89 at latest follow-up. All operations were performed via an extended posterior approach. No patients had neuro-vascular complications. Average hospital stay was 6.5 days; average transfusion requirement was 0.3 units.

There were two spontaneous femoral neck fractures, both presenting with pain at approximately 2 months. Both were revised to conventionally stemmed femoral components with large metal heads (Corin^TM). One patient presented with pain at 8 months and X-rays showed a fractured neck of femur. At revision, pus was found and diagnosis of infection was assumed. It was treated with a one-stage revision.

93 patients said they were very satisfied with their outcome and two were moderately satisfied. All patients who were more than six months post op (67 patients) had returned to their previous work (41 office work, 16 retailing, 10 farming). Twenty-six patients had returned to active leisure pursuits including running, golf, horse-riding and tennis.

Discussion: When considering new advances in arthroplasty, long-term outcome studies are necessary before any firm conclusion can be drawn regarding ultimate efficacy. This study, however, confirms that BHR is safe and gives good short-term results. While there is no substitute for long-term studies, we feel that these early results are encouraging and justify continued work with the procedure in the context of a critical prospective study.