Modularity in femoral revision evolved to address the specific weaknesses in the execution and results of the early Wagner SL stem, namely dislocations and subsidence. With modularity, distal canal fit can be achieved independently, and the proximal geometry can be created to re-establish the leg length and offset. The benefits of modularity relate specifically to being able to modify a plan intra-operatively based on the conditions that are encountered in mid battle. Inherent in this concept is the principle of predictability. The extent to which the conditions of operation may change requires alternatives to manage those changes. More importantly we need to be able to predict how an implant will sit in the bone. At the inception and with subsequent manifestations of modular fluted stems, our ability to predict where the final implant will seat based on the trial options that existed was poor. For this reason, some modular stem designs offered no trial. This was part of the imperative for modularity, so that if the implant set too high it could be easily removed with reaming a little deeper and put back in. If the stem sat more deeply than had been anticipated, the change could be compensated by an alteration in the proximal modular segment. Reproducible mid- to long-term results have been published with this type of stem. Potential negatives of the modular junction include stem breakage, fretting and corrosion, cost, and the need to accommodate a large sized proximal segment within the proximal femur. The most important feature in modern non-modular implants will be predictability. We need to be able to predict that the final reamer will sit at a particular level in the femoral bone, and the trial will reproduce this level, and the final implant will reproduce this level. More importantly, we need to be able to predict that implants will remain where they are put, and not subside. Subsidence has been causally associated with implant under-sizing, which is an error in surgical execution. As such, design features that optimise the ability to achieve intimate and broad endosteal contact between the implant and the bone can help reduce subsidence. These include precise, sharp reamers, implants in 1 mm increments, and trials that reproduce the position of the final implant. A larger implant is less likely to break, and we recommend preparation for the largest implant that the diaphysis can accommodate, often evident in the tactile feedback from the reamer, and the quality of the reamed bone being removed. Reaming is performed eccentrically in the proximal femur, so as to engage the diaphysis optimally. The need for a kink in the stem is important for modular stems, which have bulky proximal segments that can create conflict with the peritrochanteric bone in smaller patients. Non-modular stems can have a smaller proximal diameter, such that a straight stem can be accommodated in most revision cases. Early follow-up of a modern non-modular stem has shown excellent clinical improvement and reproducible ingrowth. Subsidence of > 10 mm occurred in 6 hips (6%), which is a notable improvement in historical values for this stem type, but remain short of some reports with modular stems. Improvements in goals and techniques of reaming and implantation are surely part of the improvements that have been documented, as well as those yet to be realised. Predictability will lead to simplicity and intuitiveness

INTRODUCTION

The burden of Musculoskeletal (M-S) diseases and prosthetic revision operations is huge and increasing rapidly with the aging population. For patients that require a major surgical intervention, procedures are unsafe, uncertain in outcome and have a high complication rate. The goal of this project is to create an ICT-based patient-specific surgical navigation system that helps the surgeon safely reaching the optimal functional result for the patient and is a user friendly training facility for the surgeons. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the advancements in personalized musculoskeletal modeling for patients who require severe reconstructive surgery of the lower extremity.

We scanned 25 left knees in healthy human subjects using MRI. Multiplanar reconstruction software was used to take measurements of the inferior and posterior facets of the femoral condyles and the trochlea.

A ‘basic circle’ can be defined which, in the sagittal plane, fits the posterior and inferior facets of the lateral condyle, the posterior facet of the medial condyle and the floor of the groove of the trochlea. It also approximately fits both condyles in the coronal plane (inferior facets) and the axial plane (posterior facets). The circle fitting the inferior facet of the medial condyle in the sagittal plane was consistently 35% larger than the other circles and was termed the ‘medial inferior circle’. There were strong correlations between the radii of the circles, the relative positions of the centres of the condyles, the width of the condyles, the total knee width and skeletal measurements including height. There was poor correlation between the radii of the circles and the position of the trochlea relative to the condyles.

In summary, the condyles are approximately spherical except for the inferior facet medially, which has a larger radius in the sagittal plane. The size and position of the condyles are consistent and change with the size of the person. However, the position of the trochlea is variable even though its radius is similar to that of the condyles. This information has implications for understanding anterior knee pain and for the design of knee replacements.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1623–30.

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the predictability of outcome of a consecutive series of cemented unicompartmental or total knee replacements in a single surgeon series.

Between September 2006 and February 2009, ninety-nine cemented, fixed bearing TKR were performed with patellar resurfacing. 52 cemented Miller Galante (Zimmer) Tibio-femoral UKR were performed in the same time interval. The minimum follow up was 6 months. Oxford and AKSS knee scores were collected prospectively at pre-operative and at routine follow up appointments.

Pre-operative mean AKSS Knee score for TKR group was 33.9 and improved to 84.2 at 1 year. Mean scores for Tibiofemoral UKR were 40.4 improving to 84.3 at 1 year.

Pre-operative mean Oxford knee score for TKR group was 34.6 (28%) and improved to 16.6 (65%) at 1 year. Mean scores for UKR were 28.5 (41%) improving to 14.0 (71%) at 1 year. These data would suggest that unicompartmental replacement performs as well as TKR.

However, in the TKR group, 59% achieved a knee score >85 and 23% an Oxford score >80%. In the UKR group, 67% achieved knee score >85 and 45% an Oxford score >80%. Conversely, only 5% of TKR achieved knee score <50 and 20% Oxford score <50% whilst 10% of UKR had a knee score <50 and 26% and Oxford score <50%.

These data show that whilst mean outcomes for TKR and UKR look similar, TKR offers a more predictable outcome with fewer clinical failures but also fewer excellent results. UKR offers a more polarised set of outcomes with far more clinically excellent results but also more clinical failures. These data can inform the ongoing debate regarding the role of unicompartmental arthroplasty. Patient selection is clearly critical but remains an inexact process.