Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two institutions, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral cement in selected cases for septic hip revision surgery. Between February 2010 and September 2019, 89 patients with prosthetic hip infection underwent first or single stage procedures leaving the distal femoral cement in situ and performing a cement-in-cement revision. The mean patient age was 72.0 years (24–92). The median time from the last arthroplasty procedure was 29.0 months (1–294). 81 patients underwent revision using a cemented Exeter stem, 7 patients received an articulating spacer, and one patient underwent excision arthroplasty with the distal cement left in situ. Patients received clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean of 42.8 months (range 11.0–120.1 months). Oxford hip scores were collected from each institution's existing databases. 9 patients (10.1%) died within one year of surgery. No deaths were directly related to joint infection or the surgery. One patient was lost to follow up before one year. Of the remainder, 7 patients (8.9%) required further procedures for infection and were therefore considered to be treatment failures. 6 patients (7.6%) underwent planned second stage procedures with no recurrence of infection. 7 patients (8.9%) had further surgery for non-infective reasons. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of infection free survival at one year was 93.7% (95% CI 88.4 to 99.0%). No patients underwent revision for stem loosening. Oxford hip scores were available at over one year postoperatively for 51 patients with a mean score of 30.6, and a mean gain of 11.9. In our combined cohort of patients, cement-in-cement revision had an infection eradication rate of 91.1%. Patient selection is crucial, and the procedure can only be performed when there is a well-fixed cement mantle. However, when strict criteria are followed, this technique offers potential significant benefits to surgeons performing this challenging surgery, and more importantly the patients undergoing them

Aims

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components.

Aims

We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty.

Aims

To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period.

Aims. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification. Methods. We reviewed 87 PPFs. Each was a first episode of fracture around a cemented femoral component, where surgical management consisted of revision surgery. Data regarding initial injury, intraoperative findings, and management were prospectively collected. Patient records and serial radiographs were reviewed to determine fracture classification, whether the bone cement was well fixed (B2W) or loose (B2L), and time to fracture union following treatment. Results. In total, 47 B2W fractures (54.0%) and one B3 fracture (1.1%) had cement that remained well-fixed at the cement-bone interface. These cases were treated with cement-in-cement (CinC) revision arthroplasty. Overall, 43 fractures with follow-up united, and two patients sustained further fractures secondary to nonunion and required further revision surgery. A total of 19 B2L fractures (21.8%) and 19 B3 fractures (21.8%) had cement that was loose at the cement-bone interface. These cases were managed by revision arthroplasty with either cemented or uncemented femoral components, or proximal femoral arthroplasty. One case could not be classified. Conclusion. We endorse a modification of the original Vancouver system to include a subclassification of B2 fractures around cemented femoral prostheses to include B2W (where cement is well-fixed to bone) and B2L (where the cement is loose). Fractures around taper-slip design stems are more likely to fracture in a B2W pattern compared to fractures around composite beam design stems which are more likely to fracture in a B2L pattern. B2W fractures can reliably be managed with CinC revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):71–78

Introduction. In the setting of periprosthetic joint infection, the complete removal of implants and cement can be challenging with well-fixed, cemented implants about the knee. This can get especially complex in the setting of long cemented femoral stems. Osteotomies are well described in the proximal femur and tibia for removal of implants and cement. There is little information available on distal femoral osteotomies to facilitate knee implant and retained cement removal. Methods. We describe a novel anterolateral oblique distal femoral osteotomy for the removal of well-fixed, cemented components during resection knee arthroplasty that preserves vascularity to the osteotomized segment. Cadaveric anatomic vascular injection studies were performed to document vascularity of the osteotomized segment. Clinical examples, and results will be presented. Results. Anatomic vascular studies documented preserved vascularity to the osteotomized segment. In two patients intramedullary infected implant and cement was completely removed. At reimplantation and final followup the osteotomy was radiographically healed, implants well fixed, and no recurrent infections were noted. Conclusions. This osteotomy appears to be useful when removing well fixed, cemented femoral components during periprosthetic infection. Vascularity and union was preserved and obtained in all patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

In the 1990s, a bioactive bone cement (BABC) containing apatite-wollastonite glass-ceramic (AW-GC) powder and bisphenol-a-glycidyl methacrylate resin was developed at our hospital. In 1996, we used BABC to fix the acetabular component in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 20 patients as part of a clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term results of primary THA using BABC.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and the removal of well-fixed femoral stems can be compounded by several pitfalls. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the literature. The most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy presented by Wagner and the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) described by Younger et al. Both techniques allow the surgeon to have better intraoperative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless femoral stems. Tips and tricks of the endofemoral technique for the removal of well-fixed femoral stems are presented

The well-fixed femoral stem can be challenging to remove. Removal of an extensively osteointegrated cementless stem requires disruption of the entire implant-bone interface while a well-fixed cemented stem requires complete removal of all adherent cement from the underlying cortical bone in both the metaphysis and diaphysis of the femur. In these situations, access to those areas of the femur distal to the metaphyseal flare that are beyond the reach of osteotomes and high speed burrs is necessary. This typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO). The ETO should be carefully planned so that it extends distal enough to allow for access to the end of the stem or cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation by straight burrs, trephines or cement removal instruments that cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column or end of the stem without risk of perforation. The ETO should also be long enough to allow for fixation with at least 2 cerclage cables. An ETO that is too distal makes implant and cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. After insertion of the revision stem, the osteotomy is reduced back around the stem and secured in place with cerclage cables

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term inducible displacement of cemented tibial components ten years after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients and Methods. A total of 15 patients from a previously reported prospective trial of fixation using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) were examined at a mean of 11 years (10 to 11) postoperatively. Longitudinal supine RSA examinations were acquired at one week, one year, and two years postoperatively and at final follow-up. Weight-bearing RSA examinations were also undertaken with the operated lower limb in neutral and in maximum internal rotation positions. Maximum total point motion (MTPM) was calculated for the longitudinal and inducible displacement examinations (supine versus standing, standing versus internal rotation, and supine versus standing with internal rotation). Results. All patients showed some inducible displacement. Two patients with radiolucent lines had greater mean standing-supine MTPM displacement (1.35; . sd. 0.38) compared with the remaining patients (0.68; . sd. 0.36). These two patients also had a greater mean longitudinal MTPM at ten years (0.64; . sd. 0.50) compared with the remaining patients (0.39; . sd. 0.13 mm). Conclusion. Small inducible displacements in well-fixed cemented tibial components were seen ten years postoperatively, of a similar magnitude to that which has been reported for well-fixed components one to two years postoperatively. Greater displacements were found in components with radiolucent lines. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:170–5

The extended proximal femoral osteotomy has been used primarily in conjunction with cementless fixation, but has been described for use with cemented stems as well. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy is indicated for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless implants, as well as removal of cement in patients with a loose femoral component in a well-fixed cement mantle. Although the osteotomy is not required for many femoral revisions, it is an absolute indication in patients with femoral component loosening and subsequent varus remodeling of the proximal femur. The osteotomy diminishes the risk of an inadvertent fracture of the often compromised greater trochanter especially upon removal of a failed femoral component from its subsided or migrated position. The osteotomy enhances the exposure of the acetabulum which may be difficult in the revision setting due to multiple surgeries, severe migration of the acetabular component or the heterotopic ossification. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy can also be used in the primary setting when a proximal femoral deformity interferes with straight reaming of the femoral canal, such as in patients with various dysplasias, previous corrective osteotomies or malunions

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure, especially in cases with well-fixed implants. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the current literature, while the most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy or the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). Those techniques allow the surgeon to have a better intra-operative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union are not unremarkable. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and uncemented femoral stems

Although cement in cement acetabular revision is a recognised option in the presence of a well-fixed cement mantle, partial cement mantle retention is not normally recommended or practiced. However, when revising a cemented acetabular cup it is not infrequent to be faced with loose superolateral cement but well-fixed medial cement. Removal of the well-fixed cement can be time consuming and destructive. An alternative would be to retain this cement and incorporate it into the reconstruction. This study assesses the practice and results of partial cement mantle retention (PCR) at acetabular revision. We retrospectively identified a cohort of 28 hips in 26 patients using the PCR technique from 1. st. January 2000 to 1. st. January 2013. This represented 3.3% of cup revisions where a cemented cup was used. The area of cement loss was reconstructed in one of three ways: re-cementing into drill holes (6 cases); impaction grafting of the defect (8 cases); or use of a trabecular metal wedge (14 cases). 24 hips had a minimum 2-year follow up (mean 6 years). There were no subsequent revisions for aseptic loosening. One acetabulum was later revised for dislocation and X-rays were lost in one patient leaving 22 patients with x-ray available and retained implants. Two of these cases showed progression of lucent lines, which were not clinically significant. Retaining well-fixed medial cement during socket revision appears to be a reasonable reconstruction option in carefully selected cases

Aims

In the initial development of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), the humeral component was usually fixed with cement. Cementless components were subsequently introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcome of cemented and cementless humeral components in arthroplasty of the shoulder.

The well-fixed cemented femoral stem and surrounding cement can be challenging to remove. Success requires evaluation of the quality of the cement mantle (interface lucency), position of the stem, extent of cement below the tip of the stem and skill with the specialised instruments and techniques needed to remove the stem and cement without perforating the femur. Smooth surfaced stems can usually be easily removed from the surrounding cement mantle with a variety of stem extractors that attach to the trunnion or an extraction hole on the implant. Roughened stems can be freed from the surrounding cement mantle with osteotomes or a narrow high speed burr and then extracted with the above instruments. Following this, the well-fixed cement mantle needs to be removed. Adequate exposure and visualization of the cement column is essential to remove the well-fixed cement without damage to the bone in the femur. This is important since fixation of a revision femoral component typically requires at least 4 cm of contact with supportive cortical bone, which can be difficult to obtain if the femur is perforated or if the isthmus damaged. Proximally, cement in the metaphyseal region can be thinned with a high speed burr, then split radially and removed piecemeal. It is essential to remember that both osteotomes and high speed burrs will cut thru bone easier than cement and use of these instruments poses a substantial risk of unintended bone removal and perforation of the femur if done improperly. These instruments should, as a result, be used under direct vision. Removal of more distal cement in the femur typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO) to allow for adequate access to the well-fixed cement in the bowed femoral canal. An ETO also facilitates more efficient removal of cement in the proximal femur. The ETO should be carefully planned so that it is distal enough to allow for access to the end of the cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation since the straight cement removal instruments cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column without risk of perforation. An ETO that is too distal makes cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. Cement below the level of the ETO cannot be directly visualised and specialised instruments are necessary to safely remove this distal cement. Radiofrequency cement removal devices use high frequency (ultrasonic) radio waves to melt the cement within the canal. Although cement removal with these devices is time consuming and tedious, they do substantially reduce the chances of femoral perforation. These devices can, however, generate considerable heat locally and can result in thermal injury to the bone and surrounding tissues. Once the distal end of the cement mantle is penetrated, backbiting or hooked curettes can be use to remove any remaining cement from within the canal. It is important that all cement be removed from the femur since reamers used for preparation of the distal canal will be deflected by any retained cement, which could result in eccentric reaming and inadvertent perforation of the femur and make fixation of a new implant very challenging. An intra-operative x-ray can be very helpful to insure that all cement has been removed before reaming is initiated. One should always plan for a possible femoral perforation and have cortical strut grafts and a stem available that will safely bypass the end of the cement column and the previous cement restrictor

Aims. Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used. Patients and Methods. We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results. Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (. sd). 2.8% versus 85% . sd. 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% . sd. 2.2%; 98% . sd. 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% . sd. 3.2%; 98% . sd.  2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion. The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27–32