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

Abstract. Introduction. We aimed to compare the outcomes of elderly patients with periarticular distal femur or supracondylar periprosthetic fractures treated with either open reduction internal fixation or distal femoral replacement. Methods. A retrospective review of patients over 65 years with AO Type B and C fractures of the distal femur or Su type I and II periprosthetic fractures treated with either a DFR or ORIF was undertaken. Outcomes including Length of Stay, PROMs (Oxford Knee Score and EQ 5D), infection, union, mortality, complication and reoperation rates were assessed. Data on confounding variables were also collected for multivariate analysis. Patients below 65 years and extra articular fractures were excluded. Results. 23 patients (11 in DFR group and 12 in ORIF group) fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. There was no difference between the DFR and ORIF groups with respect to SDI, demographic variables, ASA grade, FCI, preoperative Hb and renal function. There was no difference in 30 day mortality, reoperation rates, 30 day readmission rates and LOS between the two groups. Mean follow up was 12.7 and 15.9 months respectively in the DFR and ORIF groups. At final follow up after accounting for all confounding variables on multivariate analysis, functional outcomes using OKS (adjusted mean: 29.5 vs 15.8) and Health related Quality of Life outcomes using EQ 5D (adjusted mean: 0.453 vs −0.07) were significantly better in the DFR group. Conclusion. DFR for periarticular and periprosthetic distal femoral fractures in the elderly are associated with better patient reported outcomes

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

Introduction:. Distal femoral replacement is recognised as the optimum treatment for malignant distal femoral tumours. Aseptic loosening is known to be a major cause for failure in these implants. Studies have indicated that the HA coated collar promotes osteointegration and bony in growth. This study compares long term aseptic loosening in implants with HA coated collars to those without in the immature skeleton. Objectives:. To assess the effect of HA coated collars on aseptic loosening in extendable distal femoral replacement prosthesis in the immature skeleton. Methods:. All paediatric patients undergoing distal femoral replacement with extendable prosthesis were retrospectively reviewed between 1980–2003. A total of 32 patients were reviewed. 24 patients underwent distal femoral replacement with extendable prostheses without a HA coated collar. This cohort was compared to 18 patients who were treated with an extendable prosthesis with a HA coated collar between 2001–03. Average follow up in patients without a collar was 10.1 yrs (6–18) and 8.1 yrs in those with a collar (4–11). All patients with identified infection were excluded. Radiographs taken at last follow-up were analysed for loosening. Results:. Thirty-one patients were treated for primary osteosarcoma and one for a histiocytoma. Average age at operation was 13 yrs for both groups (non-collared 6–17, collared 4–11). Three of 24 patients in the non-collared cohort underwent revision compared to 1 of 18 in the collared group. The cause of revision in the collared group was infection. One patient in each cohort died within 5 years of surgery. Mean loosening score at last follow up for the non-collared group was 11.2 compared to 2.5 for the collared group with a p value of <0.05 (Mann Whitney-U). Conclusions:. Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure for distal femoral replacement prosthesis. HA coated collars have been shown to promote osteointegration. Little comparable data exists between collared and non-collared extendable prosthesis in the immature skeleton. Our data demonstrates that HA coated collars significantly reduce long term loosening in the immature skeleton

Aim. Repeat revision surgery of total hip or knee replacement may lead to massive bone loss of the femur. If these defects exceed a critical amount a stable fixation of a proximal or distal femur replacement may not be possible. In these extraordinary cases a total femur replacement (TFR) may be used as an option for limb salvage. In this retrospective study we examined complications, revision free survival (RFS), amputation free survival (AFS) and risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS following a TRF in cases of revision arthroplasty with a special focus on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Method. We included all implantations of a TFR in revision surgery from 2006–2018. Patients with a primary implantation of a TFR for oncological indications were not included. Complications were classified using the Henderson Classification. Primary endpoints were revision of the TFR or disarticulation of the hip. The minimum follow up was 24 month. RFS and AFS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, patients´ medical history was analyzed for possible risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS. Results. After applying the inclusion criteria 58 cases of a TFR in revision surgery were included with a median follow-up of 48.5 month. The median age at surgery was 68 years and the median amount of prior surgeries was 3. A soft tissue failure (Henderson Type I) appeared in 16 cases (28%) of which 13 (22%) needed revision surgery. A PJI of the TFR (Henderson Type IV) appeared in 32 cases (55%) resulting in 18 (31%) removals of the TFR and implantation of a total femur spacer. Disarticulation of the hip following a therapy resistant PJI was performed in 17 cases (29%). The overall 2-year RFS was 36% (95% confidence interval(CI) 24–48%). Patients with a Body mass Index (BMI) >30kg/m² had a decreased RFS after 24 month (>30kg/m² 11% (95%CI 0–25%) vs. <30kg/m² 50% (95%CI 34–66%)p<0.01). The overall AFS after 5 years was 68% (95%CI 54–83%). A PJI of the TFR and a BMI >30kg/m² was significantly correlated with a lower 5-year AFS (PJI 46% (95%CI 27–66%) vs no PJI 100%p<0.001) (BMI >30kg/m² 30% (95% KI 3–57%) vs. <30km/m² 85% (95% KI 73–98%)p<0.01). Conclusions. A TFR in revision arthroplasty is a valuable option for limb salvage but complications in need of further revision surgery are common. Patients with a BMI >30kg/m² should be informed regarding the increased risk for revision surgery and loss of extremity before operation

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases, the TKA is well fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For fractures above well-fixed components, internal fixation is preferred. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral plating. Nails are typically considered in arthroplasties that allow intercondylar access (“open box PS” or CR implants) and have sufficient length of the distal fragment to allow multiple locking screws to be used. This situation is rare, as most distal fragments are quite short. If a nail is chosen, use of a long nail is preferred, since it allows the additional fixation and alignment that diaphyseal fill affords. Short nails should be discouraged since they can “toggle” in the meta-diaphysis and do not engage the diaphysis to improve coronal alignment. Plates can be used with any implant type and any length of distal fragment. The challenge with either fixation strategy is obtaining stable fixation of the distal fragment while maintaining length, alignment, and rotation. Fixation opportunities in the distal fragment can be limited due to obstacles caused by femoral component lugs, boxes, stems, cement mantles, and areas of stress shielding or osteolysis. Modern lateral locked plates can be inserted in a biologically friendly submuscular extra-periosteal fashion. The goal of fixation is to obtain as many long locked screws in the distal fragment as possible. High union rates have been reported with modern locked plating and nailing techniques, however, biplanar fluoroscopic vigilance is required to prevent malalignments, typically valgus, distraction, and distal fragment hyperextension. For certain fractures, distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a wise choice. The author reserves DFR for situations where internal fixation is likely to fail (severe distal osteolysis, severe osteopenia) or for cases where it has already failed (nonunion). Obviously, if the implant is loose, revision is indicated, and typically the distal bone loss is so severe that a distal femoral replacement is indicated. The author prefers cemented constructs and routinely adds antibiotics to the cement mixture. Careful attention to posterior dissection of the distal fragment is recommended to avoid neurovascular injury. Cementing the femoral component in the proper amount of external rotation is important to allow central patellar tracking. The available literature demonstrates excellent functional results with these reconstructions, however, complications are not uncommon. Infection and extensor mechanism complications are the most frequent complications and are best avoided. In summary, ORIF remains the treatment of choice for these fractures, however, for cases where ORIF is likely to fail, or has failed, DFR remains a predictable salvage option

Peri-prosthetic distal femoral fractures around total knee replacement is a highly complex reconstructive challenge, particularly in the presence of bone comminution and poor bone quality in elderly patients. With the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures ranging from 0.3% to 2.5%, this is becoming a common problem. Older patients with concomitant medical issues have a very limited tolerance for prolonged immobilisation. It is the author's practice to revise, rather that attempt to fix, peri-prosthetic fractures of the knee which are very close to the femoral or tibial implants, particularly when associated with osteoporosis and comminution. When compared to fracture fixation, distal femoral replacement has significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Patients have been shown to recover faster, have fewer complications, and left hospital sooner. The general assumption has been that the use of a distal femoral replacement prosthesis is cost prohibitive in revision total knee settings, however, initial differences in the price of the prosthesis are more than offset by a shortened hospital stay and a more rapid return to pre-fracture level of function

Over the last decade, the number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has risen over 125%. Numerous studies have established a relationship between obesity and complications in primary TKA. Interestingly, few studies have investigated medical and orthopaedic complications in obese patients undergoing revision TKA (RTKA). With the increasing number of RTKA and with the prevalence of obesity still on the rise, the study of obesity on complications following RTKA is indicated. We retrospectively reviewed 180 RTKA performed by a single surgeon done between August 2008 and June 2017. All patients who underwent RTKA were included, but revisions done with simultaneous extensor mechanism reconstruction and/or distal femur replacement were excluded since these procedures are technically more demanding. 154 revisions met our inclusion/exclusion criteriaes and were included in the final analysis. 81 patients were included in the non-obese group (BMI . The total number of orthopaedic complications in the obese group (46.6%) was significantly higher than in the non-obese group (27.2%) (OR=1.71) (p = 0.01). The number of infection was higher in the obese group (11%) than in the non-obese (6.2%) but this was not statistically significant (OR=1.77) (p = 0.28). Reoperation rate was also higher in the obese group (23.3%) than in the non-obese group (16%) but this did not reach statistical significance (OR=1.46) (p = 0.26) (Table 3). Medical complications were higher in the obese group (31.5% vs 19.8%) (OR=1.59) (p=0.09). According to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the obese group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of grade 3 or higher complications (p = 0.01). Obesity significantly increases the occurrence of orthopaedic complications following RTKA. Obesity also seems to increase the number of medical complications following RTKA. The obese patient should be informed prior to revision TKA that there is an increased risk of complications when compared with the non-obese patient. Further research with higher power would seem advisable to confirm this trend. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

We have investigated whether improvements in design have altered the outcome for patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur following tumour resection. Survival of the implant and ‘servicing’ procedures have been documented using a prospective database and review of the implant design records and case records. A total of 335 patients underwent a distal femoral replacement with 162 having a fixed hinge design and 173 a rotating hinge with most of the latter group having a hydroxyapatite collar at the bone prosthesis junction. The median age of the patients was 24 years (range 13-82 yrs). With a minimum follow up of 5 years and a maximum of 30 years, 192 patients remain alive with a median follow-up of 11 years. The risk of revision for any reason was 17% at 5 years, 34% at 10 years and 58% at 20 years. One in ten patients developed an infection and 42% of these patients eventually required an amputation. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the fixed hinge knees whilst infection and stem fracture were the most common reason in the rotating hinges. The risk of revision for aseptic loosening in the fixed hinges was 32% at ten years compared with nil for the rotating hinge knees with a hydroxyapatite collar. The overall risk of revision for any reason was halved by use of the rotating hinge, and for patients older than 40 years at time of implant. Conclusion. Improvements in design of distal femoral replacements have significantly decreased the risk of revision surgery. Infection remains a serious problem for these patients

Background. Endoprosthetic reconstruction is an established method of treatment for primary bone tumours in children. Traditionally these were implanted with cemented intramedullary fixation. Hydroxyapatite collars at the shoulder of the implant are now standard on all extremity endoprostheses, but older cases were implanted without collars. Uncemented intramedullary fixation with hydroxyapatite collars has also been used in an attempt to reduce the incidence of problems such as aseptic loosening. Currently there are various indications that dictate which method is used. Aims. To establish long term survivorship of cemented versus uncemented endoprosthesis in paediatric patients with primary bone tumours. Methods. This was a retrospective study of 441 endoprostheses implanted in 367 consecutive patients aged 18 years or less, between 1973 and 2005. This included the use of case notes, hospital databases and a radiological review. Information obtained included patient demographics, indications for surgery, anatomical distribution and type of implants, complications and survivorship. Results. Mean age was 13.9 (range 3 - 38). 210 patients were male, 157 were female. There were 364 primaries and 77 revision implants. 161 extendable and 280 definitive prostheses. 282 patients had osteosarcoma, 54 had Ewing's sarcoma and 28 had other diagnoses. Commonest sites included 197 distal femoral replacements, 85 proximal tibial implants and 57 were in the upper limb. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare anatomical sites and method of fixation. Upper limb implants had the best long term survival. Failure rates for distal femoral replacements were compared for cemented fixation (21.7% due to aseptic loosening) with cement plus hydroxyapatite collars (3.1%) and uncemented implants with hydroxyapatite collars (6.2%). Conclusions. In the distal femur cemented fixation with hydroxyapatite collars gave the best survivorship in definitive primary prostheses. Uncemented fixation with hydroxyapatite collars gave the best survivorship in extendable prostheses. Cemented fixation without hydroxyapatite gave the worst survivorship

This edition of Cochrane Corner looks at some of the work published by the Cochrane Collaboration, covering interventions for treating distal femur fractures in adults; ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults; and local corticosteroid injection versus placebo for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background. Distal femoral replacements (DFR) are used in children for limb-salvage procedures after bone tumor surgery. These are typically modular devices involving a hinged knee axle that has peripheral metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) and central metal-on-metal (M-M) articulations. While modular connections and M-M surfaces in hip devices have been extensively studied, little is known about long-term wear or corrosion mechanisms of DFRs. Retrieved axles were examined to identify common features and patterns of surface damage, wear and corrosion. Methods. The cobalt chromium alloy axle components from 13 retrieved DFRs were cleaned and examined by eye and with a stereo microscope up to 1000× magnification. Each axle was marked into 6 zones for visual inspection: the proximal and distal views, and the middle (M-M) and 2 peripheral (MoP) zones. The approximate percentage of the following features were recorded per zone: polishing, abrasion or scratching, gouges or detectable wear, impingement wear (i.e. from non- intentional articulation), discoloration and pitting. Results. In each case, the middle M-M zones showed more damage features compared with peripheral MoP zones. Brown discoloration, presumably due to tribofilm deposits, was the predominant M-M area feature, particularly at the junction between the MoP and M-M zones. Higher magnification showed areas of polishing underlying the discoloration, suggesting repetitive removal of the surface metal and re-deposition of tribofilms (Fig 2B). 9 cases demonstrated reflective patches resembling “thumbprint” or “fish scale” markings, which, under higher magnification, showed signs of scratching and grooving in a radial pattern (Figs 2D, 3A). Pits were occasionally present but appeared to be from third-body damage as signs of corrosion were absent. Features that resembled carbides, sometimes with associated “comet” patterns of scratching were apparent under higher magnification in some areas. The MoP zones showed variable scratching, abrasion and wear polishing. The MoP to M-M junctional areas were demarcated by a distinct band corresponding, in some cases, to a narrow wear groove or gouge. 3 axles showed evidence of severe impingement wear on one proximal end. Discussion. This study of retrieved axle components demonstrated varying types of surface wear damage but no clear evidence of corrosion. This is presumably because these parts are in nearly constant motion during gait. Third-body damage may have resulted from the breakdown of surface carbides, leading to scratching, abrasion and wear polishing under high contact stress. Severe impingement wear presumably occurred after catastrophic damage to the polyethylene bushings, allowing eccentric loading and extensive metal wear. The components were revised for a range of clinical reasons including aseptic loosening and the need to expand the prosthesis during growth. With the exception of the few cases with severe impingement, it is unlikely that the wear features seen here contributed to the need for revision. While it was reassuring that corrosion was not a prominent feature of these modular M-M articulations, retrieval analysis of DFR components should be continued to confirm this finding, better document the in vivo wear processes and point to design features that might be improved for future patients. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Periprosthetic fractures involving the femoral meta/diaphysis can be treated in various fashions. The overall incidence of those fractures after primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA) ranges from 0.3 to 2.5%, however, can increase above 30% in revision TKA, especially in older patients with poorer bone quality. Various classifications suggest treatment algorithms. However, they are not followed consequently. Revision arthroplasty becomes always necessary if the implant becomes loose. Next, it should be considered in case of an unhappy TKA prior to the fracture rather than going for an osteosynthesis. Coverage of the associated segmental bone loss in combination with proximal fixation, can be achieved in either cemented or non-cemented techniques, with or without the combination of osteosynthetic fracture stabilization. Severe destruction of the metaphyseal bone, often does not allow adequate implant fixation for the revision implant and often does not allow proper anatomic alignment. In addition the destruction might include loss of integrity of the collaterals. Consequently standard or even revision implants might not be appropriate. Although first reports about partial distal femoral replacement are available since the 1960´s, larger case series or technical reports are rare within the literature and limited to some specialised centers. Most series are reported by oncologic centers, with necessary larger osseous resections of the distal femur. The implantation of any mega prosthesis system requires meticulous planning, especially to calculate the appropriate leg length of the implant and resulting leg length. After implant and maybe cement removal, non-structural bone might be resected. Trial insertion is important due to the variation of overall muscle tension and recreation of the former joint line. So far very few companies offer yet such a complete, modular system which might also be expanded to a total femur solution. Furthermore it should allow the implantation of either a cemented or uncemented diaphyseal fixation. In general, the fracture should be well bridged with a longer stem in place. At least 3 cm to 5 cm of intact diaphysis away to the fracture site is required for stable fixation for both cemented and cementless stems. Application of allograft struts and cables maximises the biomechanical integrity of the fracture zone to promote fracture repair and implant fixation. Modular bridging systems do allow centimeter wise adaption distally, to the knee joint. Consequently in modern systems fully hinged or rotational hinge knee systems can be coupled, and adjusted accordingly to the patellar tracking and joint line. Fixation of the tibial component can be achieved in uncemented and cemented techniques. We still prefer the latter. Although a reliable and relatively quick technique, frequent complications for all mega systems have been described. These usually include infections, rotational alignment and loosening of the femoral fixation or subsequent proximal femoral fractures. Infections usually can be related to large soft tissue compromise or extensive exposure or longer procedure times. Thus implantation of such reconstruction systems should be reserved to specialised centers, with adequate facilities experience, in order to minimise complications rates and optimise patients function postoperative

Supracondylar femur fractures are an uncommon but serious complication following TKA. The optimal treatment method often depends on the specific fracture pattern and various patient-related factors, and can be controversial in many cases. Nonoperative treatment can be considered in low-demand patients with minimally displaced fractures, whereas fractures associated with loose components typically require revision surgery. Displaced fractures with well-fixed implants can be treated successfully using one of several different strategies. Internal fixation after open or closed reduction can be achieved using either an intramedullary device or plate-and-screw constructs. Good results have been reported using intramedullary nails, although their use is limited to certain fracture patterns and implants designs. Modern periarticular locking plates featuring polyaxial locking screws can be inserted laterally in a submuscular fashion and offer the ability to achieve rigid fixation in the short distal fragment. These plates offer a robust treatment option for most fracture patterns. Alternatively, reliable healing and good functional results can also be achieved by revision of the femoral component using stemmed implants to bypass the fracture site. This strategy typically does not require distal femoral replacement or conversion to a hinge, and can provide consistently good results. Regardless of the treatment method chosen, careful attention should be given at the time of surgery avoid malalignment, malrotation, and distraction at the fracture site which can compromise the ultimate clinical outcome. Intra-operative femoral fractures are a rare complication that usually occurs during exposure, bone preparation, or trialing. If recognised intra-operatively and treated appropriately, reliable healing can occur

We report our retrospective multicentre experience of managing periprosthetic knee fractures using locking plates, cemented nails and distal femoral prosthesis. The Aim of this study is to analyze the practicality of management of these injuries using modern methods of fixation or salvation. 62 patients presented to 3 centres between 2003 and 2010. After implementation of inclusion criteria, clinical, radiological and functional outcomes were evaluated in 54 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. 34 patients were treated with locking plates (10 males, 24 female; mean age 76), 16 with cemented/locking nails (4 males, 12 females; mean age 84.5), and 4 with distal femoral replacement prosthesis (2 males, 2 females; mean age 79). Locking plates which were used with a minimally invasive pattern produced the best outcomes in our study. A statistical significance of p value of less than 0.01 was found in union time between patients operated on with an open technique (6.69±2.69 months) and those operated on with a minimally invasive technique (3.6±0.91 months). Nailing with augmented cement is a useful technique in patients who are not suitable for challenging surgery & rehabilitation programmes. There was a significant difference in mean time to functional weight bearing (p< 0.01) between the plate group (4.79±2.6 months) and the nail group (2.63±0.5 months). Post-operative range of motion was also better for nails (106.36±14.33. O. flexion) compared to plates (93.24±26.8. O. ), a result that approached significance (p=0.065). We recommend minimal invasive plating in uncompromised physiological conditions, as an ideal method of fracture fixation in view of statistically significant union rates. Cemented nailing is recommended in patients where early rehabilitation is essential. Distal Femoral prosthesis replacement is a useful salvage method

Introduction. Extensive bone loss and poor residual bone quality can make implant fixation difficult to achieve in revision of failed megaprostheses. While newer porous components are available to address various periarticular cavitary and segmental defects, diaphyseal fixation remains challenging without resorting to cemented techniques, or cementless fully-coated stems that achieve fixation over long segments of bone. In cases of previous infection, it may be advantageous to avoid the use of such devices as they can be difficult to remove and may result in even greater bone loss if the infection were to persist. Compressive osseointegration technology has been become a valuable device in the management of these challenging situations. Objectives. We aimed to evaluate the short-term results of compressive osseointegration when used for reconstruction of massive diaphyseal and segmental bone defects. We believe that compressive osseointegration provides predictable, strong endoprosthesis fixation in the short-term and that osseointegration can be evaluated radiogrphically. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed a total of 32 implants (spindles) in 28 patients with failed prior megaprosthetic reconstructions. Procedures were performed at two institutions by six surgeons. Data recorded included patient demographics, indication for surgery, diaphyseal segment and joint reconstructed, and any complications. Results. Average patient age and body mass index at time of surgery were 48 years (range 14–68) and 28.1 m2 (range 17–58), respectively. Indications included aseptic loosening (18), loosening and infection (11), and allograft-prosthetic composite nonunion (3). The reconstructions consisted of distal femoral replacement (16), proximal femoral replacement (10), distal humeral replacement (4) and proximal ulnar replacement (2). There were five spindle failures in 4 patients. Three were converted to a Compress device, two were successful one converted to a cemented stem and another patient was also converted to a cemented stem. Other complications that required repeat surgery included hinge failure (2), arthrofibrosis (1), segment taper adapter fracture (2), persistent chronic deep wound infection (1)and superficial wound infection (1). Fixation at the bone-implant interface remained intact in each of these cases. There was 1 deep infection in this series in spite of a large number of index infected megaprostheses. Twenty-six of twenty-eight patients (92.8%) achieved stable osteointegration and we had an overall spindle osteointegration failure rate of 15.6% (5 of 32) at a mean follow-up length of 16.7 months (range 0.5–57.4). The cortex/spindle ratio of these increased from 0.33 (SD 0.9) immediately postoperatively to 0.53 (SD 0.15) at final follow-up (p < 0.001). At most recent follow-up, these patients reported satisfaction and painless function of the operative limb. Conclusion. Use of compressive osseointegration for revision of failed massive segmental bone defects (See Fig 1 and 2) provides reliable short term fixation, and may prove to be bone conserving in cases that require future re-revision. The cortex/spindle ratio reliably increases over time as fixation is achieved. It has become our device of choice for failed limb salvage reconstructions