Introduction. The dual mobility cup was introduced in the 1970s to allow extensive range of motion associated with great stability thanks to double articulation; the first between the head and polyethylene, the second between the polyethylene and the cup. The original plan was to install a stainless-steel uncemented cup coated with a thin layer of alumina and a metal head of 22,2 mm with a polyethylene liner of first generation. Long term follow-up case studies are cited in the literature showing excellent results in reducing dislocations; however wearing and aseptic loosening are noted. The new dual-mobility cups, with reticular polyethylene and titanium and hydroxyapatite coating are proving as reliable as the older ones in terms of stability whilst they appear to be more durable. Furthermore, cemented dual-mobility cups are available, these are the topic of this study. One of the most frequent complications in the major revisions of hip replacement is dislocation. This study summarises our experience gathered in the use of dual-mobility cups during revisions of complex cases (GIR III-IV femoral or acetabular). Materials and Methods. Between July 2014 to March 2015, we have implanted 13 cemented cups with dual-mobility (Avantage® Biomet) each in different patients, who have undergone revision with severe ostheolysis (GIR III-IV femoral or acetabular). The mean age of patients was 71.5 years old (46 to 89). Indications for revisions were: aseptic loosening in 7 patients (two at third surgery), recurrent dislocation in 3 patients, 1 septic loosening, 1 revision after spacer removal e 1 post-traumatic. We used dual-mobility cup in revision surgery when implant stability could have been compromised due to difficult positioning of acetabular component in cases of walls defects or muscolar laxity. The patients have been evaluated clinically and radiographically. Results. In most difficult cases with a severe lack of acetabular walls (9 patients), and thus difficulties in correct cup positioning, we have choosen to implant a cemented cup inside a Burch-schneider® (Zimmer) ring; in those cases where acetabular morphology was still sufficient, a dual-mobility cup was directly cemented to the bone. No dislocations occured during the folllow-up, neither infections, neurological events or DVT. Discussion. Dual mobility cups are often used both as primary implant or as a revision cup. Dislocation rate in primary total hip replacement is comparable to other kind of cup normally used, while in revision cases, the incidence of dislocation decrease from a range of 5–30% to 1,1–5,5%. Our results are not yet comparable to those in literature due to short follow-up, but first impressions are comforting thanks to the lack of dislocation even in really severe cases. Conclusions. The dual-mobility cup in acetabular revisions, is one of the possible choice to keep in mind in more complex cases, where obtaining stability is difficult or impossible using other revision implants. In the literature, the available follow up are not yet long enough to be sure of implant longevity and so it's important to pay attention to use this cup in those patients with long life expectancy

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

The number of joint revision surgeries is rising, and the complexity of the cases is increasing. In 58% of the revision cases, the acetabular component has to be revised. For these indications, literature decision schemes [Paprosky 2005] point at custom pre-shaped implants. Any standard device would prove either unfeasible during surgery or inadequate in the short term. Studies show that custom-made triflanged implants can be a durable solution with good clinical results. However, the number of cases reported is few confirming that the device is not in widespread use.

Introduction. Fracture related infections (FRI) following intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures remain challenging to treat with associated high patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Recently, antibiotic-coated nails have been introduced as a strategy to reduce implant related infection rates in high-risk patients. We present the largest single-centre case series on ETN PROtect® outcomes reporting on fracture union, infection rates and treatment complications. Materials and Methods. 56 adult patients underwent surgery with ETN PROtect® between 01/09/17 and 31/12/20. Indications consisted of acute open fractures and complex revision cases (FRI, non-union surgery and re-fracture) with a mean of 3 prior surgical interventions. 51 patients had an open fracture as their index injury. We report on patient characteristics and outcomes including radiological/clinical union and deep infection. The one-year minimum follow-up rate was 87.5%. Results. One (1.8%) patient developed a deep surgical infection and associated non-union requiring further surgery. In addition, we identified three cases (5.4%) of aseptic non-union following facture treatment with ETN PROtect®. Of the 5 patients who underwent staged complex revision surgery for established FRI with ETN PROtect®, all had treatment failure with ongoing symptoms of deep infection requiring further treatment. Conclusions. Use of the ETN PROtect® nail in high-risk patients in the acute trauma setting demonstrates promising outcomes in the prevention of implant-related infection. In our limited series we have failed to observe any benefit over uncoated nails, when used in treating cases of established FRI/osteomyelitis and would therefore advise caution in their use, especially in view of the high cost

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty, one of the major challenge is the management of bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has already been popularised for tumour surgeries. The inherent advantages of PFR over allograft –prosthesis system, which is the other option for addressing severe bone loss include, early weight bearing and avoidance of non-union and disease transmission. Our study explores PFR as a possible solution for the management of complex hip revisions. Thirty consecutive hips (29 patients) that underwent PFR between January 2009 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively for their clinical and radiological outcomes. The Stanmore METS system was used in all these patients. Mean age at the index surgery (PFR) was 72.69 years (range 50–89) with number of previous hip arthroplasties ranging from 1–5. At mean follow up of 32.27 months, there were no peri-prosthetic fractures and no mechanical failure of the implants. Clearance of infection was achieved in 80% of cases. There was 1 early failure due to intra-operative perforation of femoral canal needing further revision and two were revised for deep infection. Instability was noted in 26.7% (8) of the hips, of which, 87.5% (7) needed further revision with constrained sockets. Out of these 8 hips with instability, 5 had pre-operative infection. Deep infection was noted in 20% (6) of the hips, of which, 5 were primarily revised with PFR for septic loosening. However, further surgeries were essential for only 3 patients. One patient has symptomatic aseptic acetabular loosening and 1 had asymptomatic progressive femoral side loosening (lost to follow up). Severe proximal femoral bone loss in complex revision arthroplasties has necessitated the use of PFR prosthesis. Our study supports the fact that PFR is probably a mechanically viable option for complex revisions. Significant numbers of dislocations and infections could be attributed to the poor soft tissue envelope around the hip. Further surgical techniques in the form use of dual mobility cups and silver coated PFR implants need to be explored

Background. One of the major concerns of hinge knees have been reported in literature is mechanical failure. Failure in the form of component fracture (2–10%) and hinge dislocation/ failure are worrisome. In addition, higher risk of aseptic loosening with hinge knee prosthesis has been attributed to stress transfer at bone cement interface. Methods. Retrospective review of clinical and radiological results of 71 consecutive patients operated at single centre using Smiles hinge knee (Stanmore implants) between 2010 and 2014. Data was collected till the latest follow up. Mechanical failure due to any reason was considered as primary end point. Radiological evidence of aseptic loosening was considered to be one of the surrogate end points. Results. Mean age at revision knee was 65.4 years (range 42 – 84). The number of previous revisions ranged from 1 – 4. Most common indications for revision were infection (n=26) and instability (n=26). Majority of patients had rotating hinge knee (n=66). Average follow-up was 31 months (range 3 – 72). Four patients died during follow-up due to medical reasons. There were no mechanical failures of implants apart from backing out of axle due to failure of circlip in 1 patient. Asymptomatic aseptic loosening of implant on femoral side was noted in 1 patient; however, there were no peri-prosthetic fractures in this series. Three patients had re-revision for infection and one for extensor mechanism subluxation. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is the largest series till date reporting on mechanical outcomes of hinged knee implants for complex revisions. Clip failure is of concern; however there have been no other mechanical failures. Early results are encouraging, with no symptomatic aseptic loosening of implants to report

Despite the successful, durable results, concern remains for using TKA in patients with isolated patello-femoral OA, as it requires an extensive surgical exposure and bone resection, a long recovery time, and a potentially more complex revision than that required for a patient with a failed patello-femoral arthroplasty (PFA). PFA was introduced in the late 1970s. While PFA was successful in providing pain relief, the procedure did not gain widespread use because of initial design limitations that predisposed to PF maltracking, catching, and subluxation. The mechanical complications associated with first-generation PFA offset the potential advantages of maintaining the knee's native soft tissues and spurred efforts to improve implant design, and to refine surgical techniques and patient selection. Over the past two decades, second generation PFAs incorporated changes in implant design and instrumentation and have shown promising results when used in the properly selected patient population. In addition, with improved instrumentation and robotics, adequate implant alignment and rotation can be achieved in the majority of patients, including those with severe patellofemoral dysplasia. Our meta-analysis of TKA and PFA for the treatment of isolated patello-femoral OA showed that the rate of complications of patients undergoing PFA was 30% after a median follow up of 5.3 years, which is significantly higher than the 7% rate of complications in patients who underwent TKA. The most frequent type of complication associated with PFA was mechanical (including loosening and instability), which is consistent with the malalignment and maltracking-related failures previously reported. The incidence of re-operation after PFA (21%) was significantly higher than that seen after TKA (2%). The most frequent indication for re-operation after PFA was mechanical failure (7%), followed by progression of OA (6%), and persistent pain or stiffness (5%). The most common re-operations after PFA were conversion to TKA, revision of PFA components, lateral releases, open or arthroscopic debridement, manipulations under anesthesia, and bony and/or soft tissue extensor mechanism re-alignment procedures. In our study, 11% of patients treated with PFA underwent a revision arthroplasty, with 4% undergoing revision PFA and 7% undergoing conversion to TKA. Our comparison of patients who were treated with second-generation PFA designs versus TKA showed no difference in the rate of complications, re-operation, or revision arthroplasty. Additionally, length of follow-up did not significantly influence any of these outcomes when comparing second-generation PFA and TKA. These observations provide support for the use of current PFA designs. The mechanical complications and subsequent re-operations that affected first-generation PFA designs appear to be of less concern with proper patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, current implant designs and peri-operative care. While it is difficult to predict the survivorship of current PFA designs, it is our expectation that patient selection will continue to be a critical component in determining long-term results. The potential benefit of providing pain relief while preserving the tibiofemoral articulations makes PFA a promising treatment option

Distal femoral replacement is an operation long considered as salvage operation for neoplastic conditions. Outcomes of this procedure for difficult knee revisions with bone loss of distal femur have been sparsely reported. We present the early results of complex revision knee arthroplasty using distal femoral replacement implant, performed for severe osteolysis and bone loss. Retrospective review of clinic and radiological results of 25 consecutive patients operated at single centre between January 2010 and December 2014. All patients had single type of implant. All data was collected till the latest follow up. Re-revision for any reason was considered as primary end point. Mean age at surgery was 72.2 years (range 51 – 85 years). Average number of previous knee replacements was 2.28 (range 1 to 6). Most common indications were infection, aseptic loosening and peri-prosthetic fracture. Average follow up was 24.5 months (range: 3–63 months). 1 patient died 8 months post-op due to unrelated reasons. Re-revision rate was 2/25 (8%) during this period. One was re-revised for aseptic loosening and one was revised for peri-prosthetic fracture of femur. Two other peri-prosthetic fractures were managed by open reduction and internal fixation. All 3 peri-prosthetic fractures occurred with low energy trauma. It is noteworthy that there was no hinge or mechanical failures of the implant. Peri-prosthetic fracture in 12% of patients in this series is of concern. There are no similar studies to compare this data with. The length of the stem, type of fixation of the stem, weight of the distal femoral component of implant can be postulated as factors contributing to risk of peri-prosthetic fracture

Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent functional compromise. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as poor bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The key tenets for fracture avoidance include careful planning, identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, and using appropriate surgical technique. There are a number of recognised risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures The prevalence of intraoperative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia / osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intraoperative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, may also increase the risk of intraoperative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for postoperative femoral fractures following total hip replacement include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. The management of periprosthetic fractures requires appropriate preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intraoperatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past two decades have afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimization is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort. We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems, as well as biologically challenging transverse or oblique fractures at the tip of a stem. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required. The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilization if the patient cannot fully weight bear, and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues

Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft, avoiding the potential for later graft resorption and the resulting loss of mechanical support that can follow. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants a decade ago: Type 1 – augment screwed onto the superolateral acetabular rim in a “flying buttress” configuration for treatment of a segmental rim defect, Type 2 – augment placed superiorly against host and then fixed (with cement) to the acetabular component adjacent to the cup to fill a mainly elliptical cavitary defect, and Type 3 – augment(s) placed medial to the cup to fill a protrusio type cavitary or combined cavitary segmental defect of the superomedial or medial wall, and allow peripheral cup placement against the still intact acetabular rim. In all cases the acetabular component and augment interface is fixed together with cement, with care to prevent any cement extrusion between any implant and the bone. When possible, we now prefer to place the acetabular component first and fix it provisionally with 2 or more screws, and then place the augments second as this is technically quicker and easier. This order of insertion is only possible though in type 1 and a few select type 2 cases. Type 3 cases always require placement of one or more augments first, before cup insertion. Supplemental cancellous bone graft is used routinely, but the need for structural bone is avoided. Highly porous metal acetabular augments are an infrequently needed, but extremely valuable, versatile and reliable adjunctive fixation method for use with uncemented acetabular components during complex revision THA associated with major bone deficiency. Smaller (often female) patients are more likely to require this approach as reaming away defects to allow insertion of a jumbo cup is more difficult in small patients with a smaller AP dimension to the acetabular columns and less local bone for implant support. Intermediate term durability and apparent radiographic incorporation has been very good despite the complex reconstructions originally required. This technique can allow the avoidance of structural bone grafting for even the most massive of bone defect problems, but additional followup is needed to see how durable these encouraging results are over the longer term

Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft, avoiding the potential for later graft resorption and the resulting loss of mechanical support that can follow. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Technique: Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants: Type 1 - augment screwed onto the superolateral acetabular rim in a “flying buttress” configuration for treatment of a segmental rim defect, Type 2 – augment placed superiorly against host and then fixed (with cement) to the acetabular component adjacent to the cup to fill a mainly elliptical cavitary defect, and Type 3 – augment(s) placed medial to the cup to fill a protrusio type cavitary or combined cavitary segmental defect of the superomedial or medial wall, and allow peripheral cup placement against the still intact acetabular rim. In all cases the acetabular component and augment interface is fixed together with cement, with care to prevent any cement extrusion between any implant and the bone. When possible, we now prefer to place the acetabular component first and fix it provisionally with 2 or more screws, and then place the augments second as this is technically quicker and easier. This order of insertion is only possible though in type 1 and a few select type 2 cases. Type 3 cases always require placement of one or more augments first, before cup insertion. Supplemental cancellous bone graft is used routinely. Results: From 2000 through 2007, porous tantalum acetabular augments were used very selectively in 85 revision THA procedures out of total of 1,789 revision hip cases performed at our institution in that time frame. All cases had associated massive acetabular deficiency precluding stable mechanical support for a cup alone. Fifty-eight hips had complete radiographic as well as clinical follow at minimum 5 years. The majority of patients had either Paprosky type 3A defects (28/58, 48%) or 3B defects (22/58, 38%). Ten out of 58 had pre-operative pelvic discontinuities. At 5 years, 2/58 (3%) were revised for aseptic loosening and another 6/58 demonstrated incomplete radiolucencies between the acetabular shell and zone 3. One of the revised cups and 5 of 6 of the cups with radiolucencies had an associated pelvic discontinuity. Summary: Highly porous metal acetabular augments are an infrequently needed, but extremely valuable, versatile and reliable adjunctive fixation method for use with uncemented acetabular components during complex revision THA associated with major bone deficiency. Intermediate term durability and apparent radiographic incorporation has been very good despite the complex reconstructions originally required. This technique can allow the avoidance of structural bone grafting for even the most massive of bone defect problems, but additional followup is needed to see how durable these encouraging results are over the longer term

Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants a decade ago: Type 1 - augment screwed onto the superolateral acetabular rim in a “flying buttress” configuration for treatment of a segmental rim defect, Type 2 – augment placed superiorly against host and then fixed to the acetabular component adjacent to the cup to fill a mainly elliptical cavitary defect, and Type 3 – augment(s) placed medial to the cup to fill a protrusio type cavitary or combined cavitary segmental defect of the superomedial or medial wall, and allow peripheral cup placement against the still intact acetabular rim. In all cases the acetabular component and augment interface is fixed together with cement, with care to prevent any cement extrusion between any implant and the bone. When possible, we now prefer to place the acetabular component first and fix it provisionally with 2 or more screws, and then place the augments second as this is technically quicker and easier. This order of insertion is only possible in type 1 and a few select type 2 cases. Type 3 cases always require placement of one or more augments first, before cup insertion. Supplemental cancellous bone graft is used routinely, but the need for structural bone is avoided. From 2000 through 2007, porous tantalum acetabular augments were used very selectively in 85 revision THA procedures out of total of the 1,789 revision hip cases performed at our institution. All cases had associated massive acetabular deficiency precluding stable mechanical support for a cup alone. Fifty-eight hips had complete radiographic and clinical follow at minimum 5 years. The majority of patients had either Paprosky type 3A defects (28/58, 48%) or 3B defects (22/58, 38%). Ten out of 58 had pre-operative pelvic discontinuities. Three separate patterns of augment placement were utilised: Type 1 - augment screwed onto the superolateral acetabular rim (21%), Type 2 – augment fixed to the acetabular component adjacent to the cup to fill a mainly elliptical cavitary defect (34%), and Type 3 – augment(s) placed medial to the cup to fill a protrusio type cavitary or combined cavitary segmental defect of the superomedial medial wall (45%). At 5 years, 2/58 (3%) were revised for aseptic loosening and another 6/58 demonstrated incomplete radiolucencies between the acetabular shell and zone 3. One of the revised cups and 5 of 6 of the cups with radiolucencies had an associated pelvic discontinuity. Highly porous metal acetabular augments are an infrequently needed, but extremely valuable, versatile and reliable adjunctive fixation method for use with uncemented acetabular components during complex revision THA associated with major bone deficiency. Smaller patients are more likely to require this approach as reaming away defects to allow insertion of a jumbo cup is more difficult with a smaller AP dimension to the acetabular columns and less local bone for implant support. Intermediate term durability and apparent radiographic incorporation has been very good despite the complex reconstructions originally required. This technique can allow the avoidance of structural bone grafting for even the most massive of bone defect problems, but additional followup is needed to see how durable these encouraging results are over the longer term

The advantages of modularity in both primary and revision hip surgery are well documented, and have been at the heart of innovation in hip implant design over the last two decades. There have been significant developments in modularity proximally at the head-neck junction, more distally with modular necks and at mid-stem level, notable for complex revisions. Modularity allows us to address version, length and offset issues and to restore optimal hip biomechanics. There are, however, increasing clinical concerns associated with the failure of taper junctions. The use of large femoral heads and modular stems are now considered major risk factors for taper corrosion. Recent studies have shown an 8–9% early revision rate of one modular neck design due to pain and adverse local tissue reaction. I will summarise our laboratory and retrieval data on taper design and tribology in order to put in perspective the clinical use of modularity in hip arthroplasty. Modular junctions rely on a frictional interlock. The engagement obtained and resulting micromotion is strongly influenced by taper size, taper length/engagement, material, surface finish, neck length and offset. In our quest for thinner femoral necks, greater offsets and bigger femoral heads, we have inadvertently created an environment that can generate fretting corrosion at modular junctions and leads to premature implant failure. Our work demonstrates that increasing torque and bending moment leads to increased susceptibility to fretting corrosion at the modular taper interface of total hip replacements. This is particularly relevant with the increasing use of larger diameter femoral heads that produce higher torques. It also identifies surface area and surface finish as important factors in wear and corrosion at the modular interface of total hip replacements. Critically, the combination of these factors can lead to extensive corrosion at the interface. Surgical technique is also important. Higher impaction loads on clean, dry surfaces result in greater contact length and extraction forces, which may influence micromotion. It is critical in future that all innovation is introduced in a systematic gradual fashion so that we do not fall into similar traps again. The unintended consequences of minor changes in design may have a massive effect on outcomes. Our findings suggest that it may be possible to continue to employ the advantages of modularity in hip surgery whilst avoiding some of the pitfalls that have led to the failure of some modular systems. Understanding the key design and surgical factors that drive the performance of taper junctions is vital for the surgical community. There is a body of knowledge that supports appropriate taper use / modularity to help surgeons deal with complex situations. We must be careful not throw the baby out with the bathwater

Introduction. A variety of porous coatings and substrates have been used to obtain fixation at the bone-implant interface. Clinical studies of porous tantalum, have shown radiographically well-fixed implants with limited cases of loosening. However, there has been limited retrieval analysis of porous tantalum hip implants. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors affecting bone ingrowth into porous tantalum hip implants. Methods. 126 porous tantalum acetabular shells and 7 femoral stems, were collected under an IRB-approved multicenter retrieval program. Acetabular shells that were grossly loose, cemented or complex revisions were excluded. Shells with visible bone on the surface were chosen. 20 acetabular shells (10 primary) and all femoral stems were dehydrated, embedded, sectioned, polished and bSEM imaged (Figure-1). Main shell revision reasons were infection (n=10,50%), femoral loosening (n=3,15%) and instability (n=3,15%). Analyzed implants were implanted for 2.3±1.7 years (shells) and 0.3±0.3 years (stems). Eight slices per shell and 5–7 slices per stem were analyzed. The analysis included bone area/pore area (BA/PA), BA/PA zonal depth analysis, extent of ingrowth and maximum depth of bone ingrowth. BA/PA zone depths were: Zone-1 (0–500um), Zone-2 (500–1000um) and Zone-3 (1000um-full depth). Nonparametric statistical tests investigated differences in bone measurements by location within an implant and implant type (Friedman's Variance and Kruskal-Wallis). Post-hoc Dunn tests were completed for subsequent pairwise comparisons. Spearman's rank correlation identified correlations between bone measurements and patient related variables (implantation time, age, height, weight, UCLA Activity Score). Statistical analyses were performed using PASW Statistics package. Results. BA/PA was not significantly different between acetabular shells (3.6±3.3%) and femoral stems (5.8% ± 3.9%, p=0.068). Extent of ingrowth was similar between shells (42 ± 28%) and stems (47±26%, p=0.825). Acetabular shells (76±23%) and stems (82±23%, p=0.707) had a similar maximum ingrowth depth. There were 9 shells and 2 stems (Figure-2) with full bone ingrowth into the porous tantalum substrate. When bone did not bridge the entire depth, a superficial layer of dense trabecular bone integrated with the porous layer was often observed. Localized regions of increased ingrowth were observed around screw holes. BA/PA in the superior region (4.1±2.4%) of the acetabular shells was significantly higher than in the inferior region (2.0±2.1%, p=0.047, Figure-3). Acetabular shells BA/PA in Zone-1(10.8%) was significantly higher than Zone-2 (4.9%, p=0.013) and Zone-3 (1.6%, p<0.001). BA/PA was significantly higher in Zone-1 (10.8%) than Zone-3 (2.3%, p=0.043) for femoral stems. There were no correlations between patient variables and bone measurements. Discussion. Our results demonstrate that bone ingrowth in porous tantalum hip components is concentrated in the superficial 500 um (Zone-1). This may provide the opportunity to reduce the thickness of the porous layer thus conserving more bone in future designs. Bone ingrowth in the acetabular shells was preferentially located around screw holes and superior region, similar to previous studies of other cementless designs. Only 40% of analyzed acetabular shells had implantation times greater than 2 years. Further work focused on longer term retrievals will increase understanding of the bone-implant interface. This study was supported by Zimmer and NIH (NIAMS) R01 AR47904

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a preoperative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3 – 9 years) there were four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

Aims. Revision total hip arthroplasty is a common operation. The MP Link (Waldemar Link, Hamburg, Germany) system is a distally loading, modular, tapered femoral stem component for revision hip surgery. MP Link in revision total hip arthoplasty was investigated clinically, radiologically and with Oxford hip scores. Methods. A prospective study was conducted of 43 patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty with MP Link prostheses between 2004 and 2010. The patients were operated upon by one of the senior authors (JM, JS, RC). Outcome data was collected in clinic and via patient questionnaires. Results. Of the 43 patients, 18 were males. The mean age at surgery was 70.88 years (range 37–97 years). The mean follow up was 33.1 months (range 10–61 months). Indications for revision surgery ranged from aseptic loosening in 34 patients (79.1%), infection in 7 (16.3%), periprosthetic fractures in 1 (2.3%) and recurrent dislocations in 1 (2.3%). None of the patients were lost to follow up. 4 patients died with asymptomatic, well-fixed stems. 2 patients requested to have their follow up referred to their local hospital after 6 and 28 months respectively. 1 patient developed a post-operative pulmonary embolus which was treated with warfarin and caused no further problems. The average Birmingham hip score following the revision surgery was 13.5/48. 100% of the patients had osteointegration of the stem and there were no cases of loosening or osteolysis. There was no radiographic evidence of distal migration of the stems. One patient who underwent revision for infection, became re-infected and underwent further revision surgery. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 98%. Discussion. The early to mid term results of the uncemented, modular femoral MP link prosthesis are encouraging in complex revision total hip arthoplasty. Long term results are awaited

INTRODUCTION. Managing severe periacetabular bone loss during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging task. Multiple treatment options have been described. Delta Revision Trabecular Titanium™ (TT) cup is manufactured by Electron Beam Melting (EBM) technology that allows modulating cellular solid structures with an highly porous structure were conceived to rich the goals of high bone ingrowth and physiological load transfer. The caudal hook and fins ensure additional stability and the modular system allows the surgeon to treat bone defects in the most complex revisions. Entirely modular, the system can meet all intra-operative needs thanks to a customized implant construction. The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the short to mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of this acetabular revision cups. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We prospectively assessed clinical and radiographic results of 31 cases of acetabular revisions that were performed from June 2007 and March 2012 by Delta TT Lima Revision system. The mean age of patients was 69.5 years (range 29–90). The causes of revision were aseptic loosening in 22 cases (71.0%), periprosthetic acetabular fractures in 4 cases (13.0%), multiple dislocation of the primary implant in 3 cases (9.6%) and outcome of infection in 2 cases (6.4%). Stem revision was performed in 11 cases (35,4%). In 24 cases bone impaction grafting was used to fill cavitary defects (Paprosky 2B-3A); in 7 cases TT augments were used with the same aim. The average follow-up was 32 months (range 12–69). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. No major complications were observed. The mean HHS significantly increased from 39.9 (range 17–60) preoperatively to 86.5 (range 65–100) at the last follow-up examination. The implanted cups were radiographically stable at the last follow-up visit without radiolucent lines or periprosthetic osteolysis. Trabecular Titanium showed a high capacity of osseointegration, providing excellent results in short to mid-term follow-up. The impaction grafting has demonstrated effective restoration of bone stock and no radiographic evidence bone resorption (Fig. 1). DISCUSSION. Delta Revision TT is a good solution for acetabular revision surgery even when there are cavitary and segmental bone defects. It is possible to restore muscle tension and correct anatomical impairments, while enhancing implant stability and minimising the risk of dislocation

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, loss of bone and subsequent functional deficits. We face an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures as the number of cementless implants inserted continues to rise and as the number of revisions continues to increase. The management of periprosthetic fractures requires careful preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past decade has afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimisation is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort. We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required. The treatment of unstable peri-prosthetic femur fractures can be technically challenging due to the weak non-supportive bone stock. We have seen an increase in the frequency of Type B3 fractures that require complex reconstruction with modular tapers, interlocking implants and proximal femoral replacements. Our reconstructive practice has evolved; the aims of femoral reconstruction include rotational and axial stability of the stem, near normal hip biomechanics and preserving as much femoral bone as possible. The advent of modular prostheses that gain distal fixation but have proximal options has extended the scope of this type of fixation. We now favor modular tapered stems that afford us the opportunity to reconstruct such femora whilst attempting to preserve the proximal bone. In effect, distal cone or taper fixation provides the initial stability required for the procedure to be successful but the proximal modular implant subsequently load shares to decrease stress shielding, distribute stress more evenly through the femur and minimise the risk of stem fracture. Such systems provide the intraoperative versatility that these cases require. The use of interlocking stems with coated ingrowth surfaces offers a relatively appealing solution for some complex fractures and avoids the complications that would be associated with unstable fixation or resection of the proximal femur. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are also increasingly recognised. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. These can present a very difficult reconstructive challenge and may require porous metal, cup-cage or custom reconstruction. Periprosthetic fractures continue to cause problems worldwide. The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilisation if the patient cannot fully weight bear and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues

Distal neck modularity places a modular connection at a mechanically critical location. However, this is also the location that confers perhaps the greatest clinical utility. Assessment of femoral anteversion in 342 of our THR patients by CT showed a range from −24 to 61 degrees. The use of monoblock stems in some of these deformed femurs therefore must result in a failure to appropriately reconstruct the hip and have increased risks of impingement, instability, accelerated bearing wear or fracture, and adverse local tissue reaction (ATLR). However, the risks of failing to properly reconstruct the hip without neck modularity must be weighed against the additional risks introduced by neck modularity. There are several critical design, material, and technique variables that are directly associated with higher or lower incidences of problems associated with modular neck femoral components. These include modular neck length, design and material of both parts including the junction design, wall thickness of the receiving junction, assembly force, and bearing diameter and material. With regard to stem design and material, it has been clearly shown that the incidence of titanium neck fractures is higher in stems with a thinner wall-thickness of the receiving junction than in stems with a thicker wall-thickness. Moreover, titanium necks have been largely replaced with CoCr necks with significantly higher yield and fatigue strength. It remains to be seen if the introduction of CoCr necks will decrease or increase the risks associated with distal neck modularity. With respect to titanium necks, our experience has shown no adverse local tissue reaction, no fractures of short necks (0 of 370) and a 0.34% incidence of fractures in long necks (2/580) at 3 to 8 years following surgery. This lower incidence of neck fracture compared to other reports may relate to the relatively more rigid stem and thicker wall of the junction receiving the neck compared to other stems. With respect to CoCr modular necks, one device that mated the CoCr modular neck with a beta-titanium alloy femoral component has been shown to have a high incidence of ALTR and has been recalled. While the CoCr on Conventional Titanium Alloy modular neck experience has had a statistically significantly lower incidence of problems, we believe that we have identified two cases of ALTR. If that is the case, the CoCr neck experience may well have a higher incidence of problems that the Ti neck experience. In summary, placing a modular connection at the stem-neck junction has great clinical utility but this is a very design sensitive location. There are risks associated with the use of non-modular neck components that are incapable of properly reconstructing the spectrum of pathology that presents. This failure can lead to instability, impingement, and polyethylene fracture. Yet, the use of titanium modular necks has a small risk of component fracture while the use of cobalt-chrome modular necks may have a higher risk of adverse local tissue reaction. While the existence of a modular neck may offer great advantages at the time of primary reconstruction and of future revision, currently the risk/benefit for the use of these components is strongest in patients with more significant anatomical abnormalities or more complex revision settings

Background. The procedures of total elbow and shoulder replacements increased 6% to 13% annually from 1993 to 2007 with revision-related burden increasing from 4.5% to 7%. The revisions of the shoulder and elbow prostheses due to aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures, infections have led to the use of standard or custom-made implants due to significant bone loss. This study reports our experience in the management of complicated primary and revisions of total shoulder and elbow replacements with significant humeral bone loss and in metabolic diseases of the elbow and shoulder treated with bone resection using The Mosaic Humeral Replacement System. Patients and Materials. A total of 20 patients underwent total elbow or shoulder arthroplasty using the Mosaic Humeral Replacement System (Biomet, UK). The Mosaic system was used in 8 shoulder arthroplasties (Group A) and in 12 elbow arthroplasties (Group B). The underlying pathologis in Group A included 2 malunited proximal humerus fracture, 1 humeral osteomyelitis, 1 shoulder chondrosarcoma, 1 aggressive Gigantic Cell Tumor with prosthetic fracture, 2 metastatic lytic lesion, and 1 failed fixation of non-union proximal humerus. Figure 1 shows Mosaic implant after complex fracture of proximal humerus. Reasons for Mosaic arthroplasty in Group B included 3 humeral component revisions due to periprosthetic fracture, 1 prosthesis breaking-up with fractures, 1 revision of loose Souter Strathclyde prosthesis, 1 loose prosthesis due to infection, 1 highly comminuted elbow fracture, 1 aseptic loosening of humeral component of total elbow replacement, 3 revision of total elbow replacement due loosening and 1 pathological distal humerus fracture due to metastasis. Figure 2&3 shows pre- and post-operative Mosaic implant following complex periprosthetic fracture of distal humerus. Clinical Observation/Discussion. The Mosaic Humeral Replacement System is a complete system for complex revision, salvage/oncology, and complex humeral fractures. It is a completely modular system which can be adapted to different patient anatomies and indications. It has been designed to face several surgical challenges, including reattaching soft tissues, properly tensioning the glenohumeral joint and restoring joint function. It is a cost-effective procedure with the benefits of a custom made humeral component in a standard tray. Our study shows that good results can be achieved with this form of treatment. Radiological assessment of all patients showed a satisfactory position of the implant with appropriate margin of bony resection. One patient with proximal and another one with distal humeral Mosaic replacement had late infection. One patient had aseptic loosening 3 years after distal humeral replacement. Most of the patients had satisfactory improvement in range of movement and chronic pain. While primary clinical observations and imaging results indicate acceptable results with Mosaic arthroplasty; a realistic assessment can only be achieved in long-term using the appropriate outcome measures. At the present we continue to regularly assess the patients clinically and radiologically and by means of Liverpool elbow score for distal and Quick- DASH for proximal Mosaic Humeral Replacement System and plan to report the long-term results in due time