Background. Preservation of acetabular bone during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is important, because proper stability of cementless acetabular cup during primary THA depends largely on the amount of bone stock left after acetabular reaming. Eccentric or excessive acetabular reaming can cause soft tissue impingement, loosening, altered centre of rotation, bone-to-bone impingement, intra-operative periprosthetic fracture, and other complications. Furthermore, loss of bone stock during primary THA may adversely affect subsequent revision THA. Questions/Purposes. The purpose of this study was to compare preservation of acetabular bone stock between conventional THA (CTHA) vs. robotic-guided THA (RGTHA). We hypothesised that RGTHA would allow more precise reaming, leading to use of smaller cups and greater preservation of bone stock. Methods. Patients who received RGTHA were matched to a control group of patients who received CTHA, in terms of pre-operative native femoral head size (47.8mm – 48.1mm), age (mean 56.9), gender, BMI, and approach. Acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size was used as a surrogate for amount of bone resected. We compared the groups according to three measures describing the acetabular cup diameter (c) in relation to the femoral head diameter (f). These three measures were: (1) c-f, the difference between the cup diameter and femoral head diameter, (2) (c-f)/f, the same difference as a fraction of the femoral head diameter, and (3) (c∧3-f∧3)/f∧3, the same ratio expressed volumetrically. Results. A total of 57 matched pairs were included in each group. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of gender, age at surgery, or BMI. No differences in femoral head diameter or acetabular cup diameter were observed between groups (p > 0.05). However, measure (2) (c-f)/f and (3) (c∧3-f∧3)/f∧3 did differ significantly between the groups, with lower values in the RGTHA group (p < 0.02). Conclusion. RGTHA allowed for the use of smaller acetabular cups in relation to the patient's femoral head size, compared to CTHA. Using acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size as a surrogate measure of acetabular bone resection, these results indicate that greater preservation of bone stock using RGTHA compared to CTHA. This may reflect increased translational precision during the reaming process. However, further studies are needed to validate the relationship between acetabular cup size and loss of bone in THA

Background. Preservation of acetabular bone during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is important, because proper stability of cementless acetabular cup during primary THA depends largely on the amount of bone stock left after acetabular reaming. Eccentric or excessive acetabular reaming can cause soft tissue impingement, loosening, altered center of rotation, bone-to-bone impingement, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture, and other complications. Furthermore, loss of bone stock during primary THA may adversely affect subsequent revision THA. Questions/Purposes. We sought to compare the conventional THA (CTHA) approach to robotic-guided THA (RGTHA) to determine which of these techniques preserves more acetabular bone, as interpreted from the size of the acetabular component compared with the size of the native femoral head. Methods. Patients who received RGTHA were matched to a control group of patients who received CTHA, in terms of pre-operative native femoral head size (47.8mm – 48.1mm), age (mean 56.9), gender, BMI, and approach. Acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size was used as a surrogate for amount of bone resected. We compared the groups according to three measures describing the acetabular cup diameter (c) in relation to the femoral head diameter (f). These three measures were: (1) (c − f), the difference between the cup diameter and femoral head diameter, (2) (c − f) / f, the same difference as a fraction of the femoral head diameter, and (3) (c3 − f3) / f3, the same ratio expressed volumetrically. Results. A total of 57 matched pairs were included in each group. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of gender, age at surgery, or BMI. No differences in femoral head diameter or acetabular cup diameter were observed between groups (p > 0.05). However, measures (1)(c − f), (2)(c − f) / f, and (3)(c3 − f3) / f3 did differ significantly between the groups, with lower values in the RGTHA group (p < 0.02). Conclusion. RGTHA allowed for the use of smaller acetabular cups in relation to the patient's femoral head size, compared to CTHA. Using acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size as a surrogate measure of acetabular bone resection, these results indicate that greater preservation of bone stock using RGTHA compared to CTHA. This may reflect increased translational precision during the reaming process. However, further studies are needed to validate the relationship between acetabular cup size and loss of bone in THA

Introduction. Revision hip arthroplasty with massive proximal femoral bone loss remains challenging. Whilst several surgical techniques have been described, few have reported long term supporting data. A proximal femoral allograft (PFA) may be used to reconstitute bone stock in the multiply revised femur with segmental bone loss of greater than 8 cm. This study reports the outcome of largest case series of PFA used in revision hip arthroplasty. Methods. Data was prospectively collected from a consecutive series of 69 revision hip cases incorporating PFA and retrospective analyzed. Allografts of greater than 8 cm in length (average 14cm) implanted to replace deficient bone stock during revision hip surgery between 1984 and 2000 were included. The average age at surgery was 56 years (range 32–84) with a minimum follow up of 10 years and a mean of 15.8 years (range). Results. From the original cohort four patients had died with the original PFA, 21 (30.4%) patients required further surgery with 14 (20.3%) of these needing revisions of the femoral component. The mean time to femoral revision was 9.5 years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis demonstrates a 79.9% PFA survivorship at 20 years. Discussion. Proximal femoral allograft affords long lasting reconstruction of the femoral component in revision hip surgery. We advocate PFA as an attractive option in the reconstruction of the hip in the presence of significant segmental bone loss in younger patients

We have followed a consecutive series of revision hip arthroplasties, performed for severe femoral bone loss using anatomic specific proximal femoral allografts. Forty-nine revision hip arthroplasties, using anatomic specific proximal femoral allografts longer than five centimetres were followed for a mean of 10.4 years. The mean preoperative HHS improved from 42.9 points to 76.9 points postoperatively. Six hips (12.2%) were further revised, four for non-union and aseptic failure of the implant (8.2%), one for infection (2%), and one for host step-cut fracture (2%). Junctional union was observed in 44 hips (90%). Three hips underwent re-attachment of the greater trochanter for trochanteric escape (6.1%). Asymptomatic non-union of the greater trochanter was noticed in three hips (6.1%). Moderate allograft resorption was observed in five hips (10.2%). Two fractures of the host step-cut occurred (4.1%). There were four dislocations (8.2%), two of them developed in conjunction with trochanteric escape. By definition of success as increase of HHS by 20 points or more, and no need for any subsequent re-operation related to the allograft and/or the implant, a 75.5% rate of success was found. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis predicted 73% rate of survival at 12 years, with the need for further revision of the allograft and/or implant as the end point. We conclude that the good medium-term results with the use of large anatomic- specific femoral allografts justify their continued use in cases of revision hip arthroplasty with severe bone stock loss

Femoral components in total hip replacements fail in well-known ways. There is vertical sink, posterior rotation and pivot, either distal or mid-stem. In order to sink, the stem moves into valgus and then slides down the inside of the calcar. It does not cut through the calcar.

To prevent sink and pivot, a canal filling stem is required. Canal fill prevents the stem from moving into valgus and, therefore, it will not sink. Two centimeters with complete canal fill is adequate in a primary stem. A long stem will give longer canal fill in a revision. Sharp distal flutes will prevent rotation. The distal end of the stem should be polished. One is looking for a distal stability, not distal fixation.

If the isthmus is intact, a primary stem can be used. If the isthmus is damaged, a long stem is necessary. If the calcar is intact, a primary neck is adequate. If the calcar is missing down to the level of the lesser trochanter, a calcar replacement neck is required. If there is more than 70 millimeters of completely missing proximal femur, a structural allograft is required.

If the proximal femur is damaged, the ability to place a sleeve or collar to seek the best bone available independently of the stem version is very helpful.

No matter how poor the proximal bone quality is, it can be supplemented by cerclage wires. The implant will sink only if the cerclage wires break.

The advantage of proximal fixation is that loading the proximal femur speeds recovery. The huge disadvantage of distal fixation is removal of the implant should it become necessary.

My long term results for the S-ROM stem used in revision are now out over 20 years. There were 119 primary stems with a minimum follow up of 5 years with no revisions for aseptic loosening.

There were 262 long stems used. Nine (3.7%) underwent aseptic loosening. Most of these were due to technical errors due to my inexperience in the learning process of revision surgery. Four were dependent on strut-grafts and should have been treated with structural allografts.

There were seven cases with structural allografts. Three were revised. Again, these were largely from problems arising from inexperience.

I believe proximal modularity with distal stability allows the vast majority of revision cases to be treated with proximal fixation.

Glenoid bone grafting in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has emerged as an effective method of restoring bone stock in the presence of complex glenoid bone loss, yet there is limited published evidence on efficacy. The aim of this study was to conduct an analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with glenoid bone grafting in primary RTSA. Patients who underwent a primary RTSA with glenoid bone grafting were retrospectively identified from the databases of two senior shoulder surgeons. Inclusion criteria included minimum of 12 months clinical and/or radiographical follow up. Patients underwent preoperative clinical and radiographic assessment. Graft characteristics (source, type, preparation), range of movement (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Scores [OSS]), and complications were recorded. Radiographic imaging was used to analyse implant stability, graft incorporation, and notching by two independent reviewers. Between 2013 and 2021, a total of 53 primary RTSA procedures (48 patients) with glenoid bone grafting were identified. Humeral head autograft was used in 51 (96%) of cases. Femoral head allograft was utilised in two cases. Depending on the morphology of glenoid bone loss, a combination of structural (corticocancellous) and non-structural (cancellous) grafts were used to restore glenoid bone stock and the joint line. All grafts were incorporated at review. The mean post-operative OSS was significantly higher than the pre-operative OSS (40 vs. 22, p < 0.001). ROM was significantly improved post-operatively. One patient is being investigated for residual activity-related shoulder pain. This patient also experienced scapular notching resulting in the fracturing of the inferior screw. One patient experienced recurrent dislocations but was not revised. Overall, at short term follow up, glenoid bone grafting was effective in addressing glenoid bone loss with excellent functional and clinical outcomes when used for complex bone loss in primary RTSA. The graft incorporation rate was high, with an associated low complication rate

The reverse total shoulder replacement (rTSR) has excellent clinical outcomes and prosthesis longevity, and thus, the indications have expanded to a younger age group. The use of a stemless humeral implant has been established in the anatomic TSR; and it is postulated to be safe to use in rTSR, whilst saving humeral bone stock for younger patients. The Lima stemless rTSR is a relatively new implant, with only one paper published on its outcomes. This is a single-surgeon retrospective matched case control study to assess short term outcomes of primary stemless Lima SMR rTSR with 3D planning and Image Derived Instrumentation (IDI), in comparison to a matched case group with a primary stemmed Lima SMR rTSR with 3D planning and IDI. Outcomes assessed: ROM, satisfaction score, PROMs, pain scores; and plain radiographs for loosening, loss of position, notching. Complications will be collated. Patients with at least 1 year of follow-up will be assessed. With comparing the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of the stemless rTSR to a similar patient the standard rTSR, we can assess emerging trends or complications of this new device. 41 pairs of stemless and standard rTSRs have been matched, with 1- and 2-year follow up data. Data is currently being collated. Our hypothesis is that there is no clinical or radiographical difference between the Lima stemless rTSR and the traditional Lima stemmed rTSR

The management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures is an issue of increasing importance for orthopaedic surgeons. Because of the expanding indications for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and an aging population with increasingly active lifestyles there has been a corresponding increase in the prevalence of these injuries. The management of these fractures is often complex because of issues with obtaining fixation around implants and dealing with osteopenic bone or compromised bone stock. In addition, these injuries frequently occur in frail, elderly patients, and the early restoration of function and ambulation is critical in these patients. There remains substantial controversy with respect to the optimal treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures, with some advocating for Locked Plating (LP), others Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing (RIMN) and finally those who advocate for Distal Femoral Replacement (DFR). The literature comparing these treatments, has been infrequent, and commonly restricted to single-center studies. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate a large series of operatively treated periprosthetic distal femur fractures from multiple centers and compare treatment strategies. Patients who were treated operatively for a periprosthetic distal femur fracture at 8 centers across North America between 2003 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Baseline characteristics, surgical details and post-operative clinical outcomes were collected from patients meeting inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 and older, any displaced operatively treated periprosthetic femur fracture and documented 1 year follow-up. Patients with other major lower extremity trauma or ipsilateral total hip replacement were excluded. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the type of fixation received: Locked Plating, Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing and Distal Femoral Replacement. Documented clinical follow-up was reviewed at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year following surgery. Outcome and covariate measures were assessed using basic descriptive statistics. Categorical variables, including the rate of re-operation, were compared across the three treatment groups using Fisher Exact Test. In total, 121 patients (male: 21% / female: 79%) from 8 centers were included in our analysis. Sixty-seven patients were treated with Locked Plating, 15 with Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing, and 39 were treated with Distal Femoral Replacement. At 1 year, 64% of LP patients showed radiographic union compared to 77% in the RIMN group (p=0.747). Between the 3 groups, we did not find any significant differences in ambulation, return to work and complication rates at 6 months and 1 year (Table 1). Reoperation rates at 1 year were 27% in the LP group (17 reoperations), 16% in the DFR group (6 reoperations) and 0% in the RIMN group. These differences were not statistically significant (p=0.058). We evaluated a large multicenter series of operatively treated periprosthetic distal femur fractures in this study. We did not find any statistically significant differences at 1 year between treatment groups in this study. There was a trend towards a lower rate of reoperation in the Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing group that should be evaluated further with prospective studies. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Important issues related to total hip replacement for dysplasia are: placement of the cup and bone stock, the role of femoral osteotomy, and the choice of acetabular and femoral components. The cup can be placed at the correct or near correct anatomical level with or without a bone graft, in a high position (high hip center) or at the right level in a protruded position. All three techniques can provide adequate coverage of the cup. In the high hip position bone graft is not usually necessary to obtain cup coverage. There is, however, a higher rate of component loosening, a higher dislocation rate, and lengthening is limited to the femoral side. Placing the cup in a protruded position to obtain coverage does not restore bone stock for future surgery, but it does place the hip at the correct level. Placing the cup in the correct anatomical position (i.e. at the right level and not protruded) may require a structural autograft which adds to the complexity of the case. However, bone stock is restored for future surgery. Revision of acetabular components that have had a shelf graft have a survivorship of 96.5% at 10 years and only 5 of 34 required structural support (2 augments, 3 structural allografts). Femoral osteotomy may be used as part of the exposure for diaphyseal shortening or for derotation of excessive anteversion. The osteotomy is carried out in the sub-trochanteric region and may be oblique, step-cut or transverse. Fixation of the osteotomy is achieved via the stem, a plate, or a cortical strut. Cementless components are usually used because of the relatively young age of this patient population. Small components may be necessary. On the femoral side, the stem should be straight or modular so excessive anteversion can be neutralised

As the incidence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises, an increasing prevalence of peri-prosthetic femur fractures has been reported. This is likely due to the growing population with arthroplasties, increasing patient survival and a more active life-style following arthroplasty. It is the 3rd most common reason for THA reoperation (9.5%) and 5th most common reason for revision (5% with fracture risk after primary THA reported at 0.4%-1.1% and after revision at 2.1%-4%). High quality radiographs are usually sufficient to classify the fracture and plan treatment. Important issues in treatment include stem fixation status and fracture location relative to the stem. Additional comorbidities will also influence treatment choices, of which the most critical is the presence of infection and the quality of bone stock. The most commonly studied, and reported classification system is the Vancouver. Type A are peri-trochanteric fractures with AL at the lesser and AG at the greater trochanter. B fractures are those around the stem with B1 fractures having a well-fixed stem, B2 a loose stem with adequate bone stock, and B3 representing loose stem and inadequate bone stock. C fractures are distal to the stem. Type A) Trochanteric Fractures: These are usually associated with lysis. Displaced fractures can be managed adequately with cerclage fixation and cancellous allograft to fill osteolytic defects. Undisplaced fractures usually heal well with symptomatic treatment. Type B) Fractures Around the Stem: The B1 type has a well-fixed component and is usually treated with extramedullary fixation plus graft. Contemporary plates have been designed specifically for these fractures. Strut allograft may be used to provide a more rigid construct. Spiral and long oblique fractures can be cerclaged while short oblique or transverse fractures require fixation anterior and lateral with cable plates and cortical strut grafts. Screws can be used distal to the implant, and cables used proximally. The B2 type has a loose prosthesis but otherwise good bone stock. In this setting, the fracture line may be extended on the lateral cortex of the femur as an extended osteotomy to provide easy access for cement removal. These fractures can be managed with an extensively coated stem if rotational stability can be obtained in the distal segment. If rotational stability over a 4 cm scratch interference fit of the stem isn't possible, then a fluted tapered modular stem should be used. Strut allografts improve initial stability. The B3 type has both a loose prosthesis and poor bone stock and in the younger patient restoration of bone stock should be a priority. Bulk femoral grafts may be needed. The elderly or low functional demand patient may be treated with a proximal femoral replacement. Because of soft-tissue deficiencies, a constrained acetabular liner may be needed to prevent instability. Type C) Fractures Distal to the Stem: These usually accompany a stable stem and many fixation devices are available. Locking plates have become most popular and should be secured with cerclage wires proximally around the component with screws distally. Retrograde nails may be employed if there is adequate bone distal to the stem tip and above the fracture

Important issues related to total hip replacement for dysplasia are: placement of the cup and bone stock; the role of femoral osteotomy, and the choice of acetabular and femoral components. The cup can be placed at the correct or near correct anatomical level with or without a bone graft, in a high position (high hip center) or at the right level in a protruded position. All three techniques can provide adequate coverage of the cup. In the high hip position bone graft is not usually necessary to obtain cup coverage. There is, however, a higher rate of component loosening, a higher dislocation rate, and lengthening is limited to the femoral side. Placing the cup in a protruded position to obtain coverage does not restore bone stock for future surgery, but it does place the hip at the correct level. Placing the cup in the correct anatomical position (i.e., at the right level and not protruded) may require a structural autograft which adds to the complexity of the case. However, bone stock is restored for future surgery. Femoral osteotomy may be used as part of the exposure for diaphyseal shortening or for derotation of excessive anteversion. The osteotomy is carried out in the sub-trochanteric region and may be oblique, step-cut or transverse. Fixation of the osteotomy is achieved via the stem, a plate, or a cortical strut. Cementless components are usually used because of the relatively young age of this patient population. Small components may be necessary. On the femoral side, the stem should be straight or modular so excessive anteversion can be neutralised

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodelling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally, the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2–5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, and insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weightbearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%, while survivorship for revision as aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported about similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition, a long-term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Femoral revision after cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem. Bone loss may occur because of implant loosening or polyethylene wear, and should be addressed at time of revision surgery. Stem revision can be performed with modular cementless reconstruction stems involving the diaphysis for fixation, or alternatively with restoration of the bone stock of the proximal femur with the use of allografts. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur in Paprosky defects Type 1 or 2. In combination with a regular length cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for restoration of femoral bone stock through incorporation and remodeling of the proximal femur. Cavitary bone defects affecting the metaphysis and partly the diaphysis leading to a wide femoral canal are ideal indications for this technique. In case of combined segmental-cavitary defects a metal mesh is used to contain the defect which is then filled and impacted with bone grafts. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 2 to 4 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a dummy of the dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is inserted and tapped into the femur to ensure that the chips are firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is implanted into the newly created medullary canal using bone cement. To date several studies from Europe have shown favorable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported. Advantages of IBG include the restoration of the bone stock in the proximal femur, the use of standard length cemented stems and preserving the diaphysis for re-revision. As disadvantages of the technique: longer surgical time, increased blood loss and the necessity of a bone bank can be mentioned

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the ENDO-Klinik experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2 – 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6 – 8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal to the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressively larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Postoperative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10 year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%. While survivorship for revision related to aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Cemented THA has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long-term results. Although showing decreasing popularity in North America, it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in Europe and other parts of the world. Various older and recent studies presented excellent long-term results, for cemented fixation of the cup as well as the stem. Besides optimal component orientation, a proper cementing technique is of major importance to assure longevity of implant fixation. Consequently a meticulous bone bed preparation assures the mechanical interlock between the implant component, cement and the final bone bed. Pre-operative steps as proper implant sizing/ templating, ensuring an adequate cement mantle thickness, and hypotensive anaesthesia, minimizing bleeding at the bone cement interface, are of major importance. Additionally, femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty has been advocated as an alternative to stemmed humeral component designs given its ability to preserve proximal bone stock. Further, these implants have become more attractive given the possibility of stem-related complications including humeral fracture, stress shielding, and osteolysis; complications that may necessitate fixation, revision to long stem components, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As more total shoulder arthroplasties are performed in younger patient populations, the likelihood of increased revision procedures is inevitable. Maintaining proximal bone stock in these cases with use of a resurfacing arthroplasty not only facilitates explant during revision arthroplasty, but preservation of proximal metaphyseal bone facilitates reimplantation of components. Clinical results of these resurfacing components have demonstrated favorable results similar to stemmed designs. Unfortunately, resurfacing arthroplasty may not be as ideal as was hoped with regard to recreating native humeral anatomy. Further, resurfacing arthroplasty may increase the risk of peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, and lack of a formal humeral head cut makes glenoid exposure more difficult, which may be associated with a higher degree of neurovascular injury. Stemless humeral components are designed for strong metaphyseal fixation and avoid the difficulty with glenoid exposure seen in resurfacing designs, as these components require a formal humeral head cut. Early clinical outcomes of a single stemless design demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcome scores, without evidence of component migration, subsidence or loosening. The only mid-term clinical results of stemless design implants are seen with the Arthrex Eclipse system (Arthrex, Naples, FL). In a prospective study involving 78 patients at 5-year follow-up, significant improvements were observed in clinical outcome scores. While there was evidence of proximal stress shielding in an older population, this did not influence shoulder function. The overall revision rate was 9% at 5 years, with no component necessitating revision as a result of humeral component loosening. Resurfacing arthroplasty and stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty remain attractive options to preserve proximal metaphyseal bone stock, avoiding stem-related complications. Early and mid-term clinical outcomes are comparable to stemmed designs and demonstrate no evidence of humeral component loosening

BACKGROUND. Total hip revision surgery in cases with previous multiple reconstructive procedures is a challenging treatment due to difficulties in treatment huge bone defects with standard revision prosthetic combinations. A new specially made production system in Electron-Beam Melting (EBM) technology based on a precise analysis of patients' preoperative CT scans has been developed. METHODS. Objectives of design customization in difficult cases are to correctly evaluate patient's anatomy, to plan a surgical procedure and to obtain an optimal fixation to a poor bone stock. The 3D Printing (EBM) technology permits to create an extremely flexible patient matching implant and instrument, with material performances not viable with standard manufacturing process. Dedicated visual 3D tools and instrumentations improve implants congruency according to preoperative plan. Primary stability is enhanced and tailored on patient's anatomy by means of press-fit, iliac stems and the high friction performances of Trabecular Titanium matrix. The use of bone screws and their position is designed to enhance primary stability, even in critical bone conditions, avoiding implant stress shielding and allowing bone integration. 4 cases (2 men and 2 women) of acetabular customized implants were performed. Mean age at surgery was 51.5 years (range 25–72). Patients were reviewed clinically and radiographically at follow-up. RESULTS. No signs of miss-match between intraoperative bone conditions and pre-operative planning were observed. No additional bone grafts or further native bone removal were needed. Biomechanical parameters were restored by using internal modularity (i.e. face-changers / angled spacers). Face-changers allow to correct coverage and anteversion of the acetabular system. Incompatibility or impingement between the stems and new acetabular component was not observed and stem revision was performed in one case. On-table stability proved excellent and no intraoperative complications were observed. All patients underwent an immediate mobilization with full weight-bearing. Mean Harris Hip Score increased significantly from 13.9 (range 6.9–20.6) preoperatively to 75.8 (range 53.9–94) at last follow-up (mean 17.5, range: 10–33), showing an improvement in terms of both pain relief, function and joint mobility. Radiographically neither signs of instability, migration nor tilting were observed. No case of dislocation nor infection were recorded. CONCLUSION. A detailed anatomical reconstruction, in-depth preoperative planning, custom-implant design, high performance of the 3D-printing technology, system modularity and patient-specific surgical tools permitted an effective restoration of the biomechanical joint parameters in these complex revision cases. The optimal primary stability of the implants promoted an early osseointegration with the remaining bone stock. Further studies shall be necessary to assess the performance of these Implants at long-term follow-up

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on the loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration by incorporating and remodeling the allograft bone of the host skeleton. Historically, this was first performed and described in Exeter in 1987. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Nowadays our main indication is the Paprosky Type IIIb and Type IV. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Technical steps include: . –. removal of failed stem and all cement rests. –. reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (containment). –. preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill. –. optimal bone chip diameter 2 to 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm). –. insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip. –. introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal. –. impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal. –. insertion of a stem „dummy“ as proximal impactor and space filler. –. removal of central wire. –. retrograde insertion of bone cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurisation. –. insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft while sealing the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favourable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to coldflow within the cement mantle, however, it could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow-up has been reported by the Exeter group at over 90%. While survivorship for revision defined as aseptic loosening is even greater at above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long-term follow-up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years and 99% with the endpoint aseptic loosening. Impaction grafting is technically more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. However, it enables a reliable restoration of bone stock

There has been a renewed interest in surface replacement arthroplasty over the last decade, with the hope and expectation that this procedure would provide an advantage over conventional total hip arthroplasty, especially in the young, active patient. More specifically, the promises of surface replacement arthroplasty have been: 1) preservation of bone stock so that future revisions would be easier, 2) potential to be minimally invasive in their approach, 3) better functional outcomes because of the stability associated with a larger femoral head with potential associated proprioceptive advantages, and 4) improved survivorship. Unfortunately, these promises have not been realised. Surface replacement arthroplasty does maintain more initial bone stock on the femur, but also tends to remove more bone initially on the acetabular side. Long term, it is the loss of acetabular bone stock that is more problematic from a reconstructive perspective. Further, the “simple” revision afforded in surface replacement arthroplasty has led to reports of inferior clinical outcomes, especially with respect to subjective complaints of pain. Surface replacement arthroplasty is more invasive than conventional total hip arthroplasty as the femoral head is maintained and the window to the acetabulum is subsequently partially blocked. This is exacerbated by the fact that many of these patients are young active males. There is no compelling evidence that surface replacement arthroplasty offers improved functional outcomes over conventional total hip arthroplasty, particularly when considering gait and proprioception. Some studies have in fact shown inferior outcomes. The concept of the larger femoral head in surface replacement arthroplasty providing increased range of motion and subsequent better function is flawed as it is the head-to-neck ratio that appears to be a more important determinant of outcome in this sense. Total hip arthroplasty generally has a more favorable ratio. Surface replacement arthroplasty has inferior survivorship to conventional total hip arthroplasty, even when accounting for the younger age of this patient cohort. This finding is consistent across multiple national joint replacement registries. The outcomes and survivorship are particularly poor in females, with many authors now advocating that the procedure be reserved for males. Surface replacement arthroplasty has introduced several new problems and mechanisms of failures, most concerning of which is the formation of pseudotumors in some patients. It is unclear as to who is at risk for this significant complication, and the ability to diagnose and treat this disorder is difficult and still in evolution. Likely associated is the significant elevation of metal ions in the serum and urine of some surface replacement arthroplasty patients. Neck fractures and loss of bone stock around the femoral implant have also been noted as problematic for these devices. Some of these problems have led to specific surface replacement arthroplasty systems being recalled. Finally, surface replacement arthroplasties are premium products with associated increased costs, which, frankly, are not justified

Introduction. A previous computational study on an all-polymer PEEK-on-UHMWPE total knee replacement implant showed improved periprosthetic bone loading, compared to a conventional implant [1]. That study used a simulated gait cycle to determine distal loading, but a patella was not included. Substantial distal decrease of bone remodeling stimulus was found, in accordance with previous reports [2], but it was not consistent with other clinical and post-mortem DEXA results, which found the largest loss of bone stock in the anterior region [3,4]. As patellofemoral forces are relatively low during gait compared to squatting, we simulated a deep squat, expecting that a high-demand activity would provide similar indications of bone loss as literature [3,4]. Consequently, we applied both high tibiofemoral and patellofemoral loads, to provide more insight in the potential benefits of a new PEEK-Optima® femoral component on periprosthetic bone stock. Methods. We adopted a deep squat finite element model from Zelle et al. and included quasi-static deep flexion and load sharing at the posterior condyles [6]. A new implant design was inserted, with three variations in material properties: intact, CoCr and PEEK. The stiffness of the femoral elements was mapped from CT and applied to either the cut femur only (CoCr and PEEK) or the entire femoral construct (intact). The strain energy density (SED) was evaluated in the periprosthetic region as a measure for bone remodeling stimulus. To examine the effects of the entire exercise, SED values were integrated over all increments. Results. During squat the highest SED values were found at the intercondylar region, behind the posterior condyles and behind the anterior flange, extending further inward to the bone. Both the lateral and medial view of the periprosthetic region show markedly different SED patterns from the conventional CoCr implant. Higher values originating proximally extended to lower values in the anterodistal region (Figure 1). However, in the CoCr reconstruction these anterodistal patterns less prominent or even absent. In Figure 2, simulated DEXA images are presented showing the bone remodeling stimulus throughout the periprosthetic volume. Overall, the image for CoCr shows darker areas than PEEK and the reference, further corroborating the findings shown in Figure 1. Moreover, it is visible that the PEEK reconstruction had SED values similar to the reference in the femoral component region. Discussion. This study has corroborated that the influence of the patella in high-demanding tasks is of great importance to the anterior periprosthetic bone stock [4,5]. The loss of bone remodeling stimulus in the CoCr reconstruction is in accordance with literature findings [2–4]. The resemblance of PEEK to the intact reference suggests that the new PEEK-Optima® femoral component could largely retain the integrity of the periprosthetic bone