Extensor mechanism disruption in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) occurs infrequently but often requires surgical intervention. We compared two cohorts undergoing extensor mechanism allograft reconstruction, one group had an extensor mechanism rupture, and the other had a recurrent ankylosed knee. Thirteen consecutive patients with extensor mechanism disruption or ankylosis after TKA were treated. Two different types of extensor mechanism allografts were used: quadriceps tendon-patella-patella tendon-tibial tubercle, and Achilles tendon allograft(Fig1). Demographic factors, diagnosis at extensor failure, Knee Society clinical rating scores, radiographs, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The average time from extensor mechanism disruption to surgery was 6.6 months (range, 1-24 months). At a mean followup of 24 months (range, 6-46 months), all patients were community ambulators. None of the patients showed a postoperative extensor lag. Average postoperative maximum flexion was 97° (90-115°) for the ruptured group and 80° (75-90) for the ankylosed grup. All patients thought their functional status had improved, and 87% were satisfied with the results of the allograft reconstruction (Fig 2, 3, 4, 5). One patient had allograft failure due to recurrent infection after re-revision for sepsis. The total extensor mechanism allograft and Achilles tendon allograft both were successful in the treatment of the failed extensor mechanism and showed promising results for the treatment of the ankylosed knee

A key component to the success of total knee replacement is the health and integrity of the extensor mechanism. While there are issues related to the patella, such as fracture, dislocation, subluxation, clunk due to peripatellar fibrosis and anterior knee pain, the overall integrity of the extensor mechanism is of tantamount importance in providing an excellent functional outcome. During total knee replacement it is of utmost importance to preserve the anatomic insertion of the patellar tendon on the tibial tubercle. However, after total knee replacement, a fall or extreme osteoporosis of the patella may cause a rupture of the patellar tendon, distally or proximally, and possibly the quadriceps tendon off of the proximal pole of the patella. Simple repairs of the patellar tendon avulsion may involve use of the semitendonosis and gracilis tendons along with primary repair of the tendon. Usually, patella infera develops after such a repair affecting overall strength and function. For severe disruptions of the extensor mechanism that are accompanied by a significant extensor lag, autologous tissue repair may not be possible. Thus, there are three techniques for reconstruction of this difficult problem: Extensor mechanism allograft with bone-patellar tendon-patella-quadriceps tendon, extensor mechanism allograft with os calcis-Achilles tendon construct and Marlex-mesh reconstruction for patellar tendon avulsion. The key to success of extensor mechanism allograft is proper tensioning of the allograft at full extensor and immobilisation for 6 weeks. Rosenberg's early experience showed that the allograft works best placed at maximum tension in extension. Rubash has described the use of the os calcis-Achilles tendon which does not utilise a patellar substitute. Hansen has recently described excellent results with the use of Marlex mesh to act as a structural reinforcement to the patellar tendon when it is avulsed

A key component to the success of total knee replacement is the health and integrity of the extensor mechanism. While there are issues related to the patella, such as fracture, dislocation, subluxation, clunk due to peripatellar fibrosis and anterior knee pain, the overall integrity of the extensor mechanism is of tantamount importance in providing an excellent functional outcome. During total knee replacement it is of utmost importance to preserve the anatomic insertion of the patellar tendon on the tibial tubercle. However, after total knee replacement, a fall or extreme osteoporosis of the patella may cause a rupture of the patellar tendon, distally or proximally, and possibly the quadriceps tendon off of the proximal pole of the patella. Simple repairs of the patellar tendon avulsion may involve use of the semitendonosis and gracilis tendons along with primary repair of the tendon. Usually, patella infera develops after such a repair affecting overall strength and function. For severe disruptions of the extensor mechanism that are accompanied by a significant extensor lag, autologous tissue repair may not be possible. Thus, there are three techniques for reconstruction of this difficult problem: Extensor mechanism allograft with bone-patellar tendon-patella-quadriceps tendon, extensor mechanism allograft with os calcis-Achilles tendon construct and Marlex-mesh reconstruction for patellar tendon avulsion. The key to success of extensor mechanism allograft is proper tensioning of the allograft at full extensor and immobilisation for 6 weeks. Rosenberg's early experience showed that the allograft works best placed at maximum tension in extension. Rubash has described the use of the os calsis-Achilles tendon which does not utilise a patellar substitute. Hansen has recently described excellent results with the use of Marlex mesh to act as a structural reinforcement to the patellar tendon when it is avulsed

To evaluate the value of the use of massive prostheses in periprosthetic infections both in one stage and two stages procedures. Between 2008 and 2014, 236 revisions for PJI had been performed in our hospital by the same surgeon. For the most complex cases, we decided to introduce megaprostheses in our practice in 2011. We report a prospective series of 33 infected patients treated between 2011 and the end of 2014, 14 male and 19 female with on average 67.9 years old (38–85) Infection involved TKA in 22 cases (17 TKA revisions, 4 primary TKA), THA in 9 cases (6 revisions, 3 primary THA), a femoral pseudo-arthrosis with posttraumatic gonarthrosis in one case and a septic humeral pseudoarthrosis in one case. We used a total femoral component for two patients: the first one for a hip PJI with extended diaphyseal bone loss and multiples sinus tracks, and the second one for a massive infected knee prosthesis used in a knee reconstruction for liposarcoma. We used one stage procedures in 20 cases (8 hips, 12 knees, 1 shoulder) and two stages in 13 cases (12 knees and 1 hip). Additional technics included 3 massive extensor system allografts, two local flaps. Perioperative hyperbaric treatment was used for 2 patients. The average follow up is 19.8 months (6–48 months). The most frequent complications were wound swelling and delayed healing in 8 cases;). In 3 cases of one stage surgery a complementary debridement was necessary in the three weeks after the surgery with always a good local and infectious evolution. VAC therapy was used in four cases with good results. We report one early postoperative dead. In summary, the use of massive prostheses in PJI is a good option for complex cases. It can be a good alternative to knee arthrodesis. These components must be used preferentially for older patients, in cases of extreme bone loss or extensive osteomyelitis to secure the bone debridement and the quality of the reconstruction. In our series, the one stage procedure is a validated option even by using complementary technics as bone allografts, extensor system allografts or flaps. We believe the two stages surgery is a secondary option, particularly when soft tissues status is compromised before or after the debridement, and mostly for the knees. The longevity of the implantation must be evaluate by a long term follow up

Introduction. When using press-fit stems in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), diaphyseal engagement optimizes stability. Attempts to maximize press fit may lead to periprosthetic fracture; however, the literature offers no guidance regarding the prevalence or management of this complication. The purpose of this study is to report the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of these fractures. Methods. 634 Stemmed implants (307 femoral and 327 tibial) from 413 consecutive revision TKAs were reviewed. Immediate and 6 week post-operative radiographs were examined. Patient age, gender, stem length, diameter, and offset were evaluated as potential risk factors for fracture occurrence using a paired t-test for continuous and a chi-square analysis for categorical variables. Results. 15 Periprosthetic fractures (2.4%) were identified including two femoral (0.65%) and 13 tibial (4.0%). 10 Fractures were non-displaced, 3 had cortical displacement <2mm, and 2 were displaced >2mm. 1 Femur fracture was recognized and fixed intra-operatively with cables. 11 patients with non or minimally displaced fractures were allowed to bear weight as tolerated and 2 were protected for 2 weeks. 1 Displaced fracture was braced for 3 months, while the other was casted for concomitant extensor allograft reconstruction. All fractures showed radiographic evidence of healing and all patients were able to painlessly bear weight within 6 months. There was no evidence of implant migration at a mean of 15 months (range 3-47 months). 1 Patient developed recurrent infection at 10 months; no other complications were identified. With the sample size available for study, no significant differences in age (p=0.09), implant parameters (p=0.06-0.85) or gender (p=0.37) were detected between the fracture and non-fracture groups. Conclusions. Periprosthetic fractures occurred in approximately 2.4% of press-fit stems in revision TKA, more commonly in the tibia than femur. All fractures were managed non-operatively without complication or loss of prosthetic fixation

Aims. To evaluate the place of the massive prostheses in the most complex periprosthetic infections cases (PJis). Method. Between 2011 and 2017, 516 hip and knee revisions for periprosthetic infections had been performed in our hospital by the same senior surgeon. We report a prospective series of 58 patients treated between 2011 and the end of 2017. 26 males and 32 females with on average 69,4 years old (38–86). Infection involved TKA in 39 cases (26 TKA revisions, 11 primary TKA), THA in 18 cases (10 revisions, 7 primary THA), a femoral pseudoarthrosis with posttraumatic gonarthrosis in one case and a septic humeral pseudoarthrosis in one case. We used one stage procedures in 38 cases (14 hips, 23 knees, 1 shoulder) and 20 two stages surgeries (16 knees and 4 hips). Additional technics used with massive prostheses, all for TKA PJis: 4 massive extensor systemallografts performed two times in a one stage procedure, two local flaps (medial gastronecmienmuscle). Two perioperative hyperbaric procedures used to limit the risks of wound complications. Results. The average follow-up is 38 months (12–62 months). The rate of sucess to treat the infection at this follow-up is 89,7 %. We report our feedback of the different massive components uses and the qualities/defaults we noted. The most frequent complication was skin events like wound swelling and delayed cicatrisations in 13 cases. 3 cases of one stages needed a complementary debridement in the three weeks after the surgery with always a good local and infectious evolution. This series report 5 failures of two stages TKA revisions. In 4 cases, the initial local soft tissues conditions were compromised. Conclusions. The use of massive prostheses to treat PJIs is a good option for the complex cases. It can be a good alternative of knee arthrodesis. These components must be used, preferentially for oldest patients, in cases of extreme bone loss or extensed osteitis to secure the bone debridement and the quality of the reconstruction. In our series, the one stage procedure is a validated option even by using complementary technics as bone allografts, extensor system allografts or flaps. The two stages procedure is a secondary option, particularly when softtissues status is compromised before or after the debridement, and mostly for the knees

Extensor mechanism complications after or during total knee arthroplasty are problematic. The prevalence ranges from 1–12% in TKR patients. Treatment results for these problems are inferior to the results of similar problems in non-TKR patients. Furthermore, the treatment algorithm is fundamentally different from that of non-TKR patients. The surgeon's first question does not focus on primary fixation; rather the surgeon must ask if the patient needs surgery and if so am I prepared to augment the repair? Quadriceps tendon rupture, periprosthetic patellar fracture, and patellar tendon rupture have similar treatment algorithms. Patients who are able to perform a straight leg raise and have less than a 20-degree extensor lag are generally treated non-operatively with extension bracing. The remaining patients will need surgical reconstruction of the extensor mechanism. Loose patellar components are removed. Primary repair alone is associated with poor results. Whole extensor mechanism allograft, Achilles tendon allograft, and synthetic mesh reconstruction are the current techniques for augmentation. In the acute setting if these are not available hamstring tendon harvest and augmentation is an option. Achilles tendons and synthetic mesh are easier to obtain than and entire extensor mechanism but are limited to patients that have an intact patella and the patella that can be mobilised to within 2–3 cm of the joint line. No matter which technique is used the principles are: rigid distal/tubercle fixation, coverage of allograft/mesh with host tissue to decrease infection, tensioning the augment material in extension, no flexion testing of reconstruction and post-operative extension bracing

Extensor mechanism complications after or during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are problematic. The prevalence ranges from 1%-12% in TKA patients. Treatment results for these problems are inferior to the results of similar problems in non-TKA patients. Furthermore, the treatment algorithm is fundamentally different from that of non-TKA patients. The surgeon's first question does not focus on primary fixation; rather the surgeon must ask if the patient needs surgery and if so am I prepared to augment the repair? Quadriceps tendon rupture, peri-prosthetic patellar fracture, and patellar tendon rupture have similar treatment algorithms. Patients who are able to perform a straight leg raise and have less than a 20-degree extensor lag are generally treated non-operatively with extension bracing. The remaining patients will need surgical reconstruction of the extensor mechanism. Loose patellar components are removed. Primary repair alone is associated with poor results. Whole extensor mechanism allograft, Achilles tendon allograft, and synthetic mesh reconstruction are the current techniques for augmentation. In the acute setting if these are not available, hamstring tendon harvest and augmentation is an option. Achilles tendons and synthetic mesh are easier to obtain than an entire extensor mechanism but are limited to patients that have an intact patella and the patella that can be mobilised to within 2–3 cm of the joint line. No matter which technique is used the principles are: rigid distal/tubercle fixation, coverage of allograft/mesh with host tissue to decrease infection, tensioning the augment material in extension, no flexion testing of reconstruction and post-operative extension bracing

Despite our best efforts, occasionally, certain patients will have multiply operated, failed reconstructions after TKA. There are situations where further attempts at arthroplasty are unwise, for example, chronic infections with multiple failed staged reconstructions. A careful pre-operative evaluation of the patient is critical to guide decision-making. An assessment of medical comorbidity, functional demands, and expectations is important. Regarding the extremity, the severity of bone loss, soft tissue defects, ligamentous competency, and neurovascular status is important. The next step is to determine whether the knee is infected. The details of such a workup are covered in other lectures, however, the author prefers to aspirate all such knees and obtain C reactive protein and sedimentation rates. For equivocal cases, PCR may be helpful. If no infection is present, complex reconstruction is considered. Segmental megaprosthesis and hinged prostheses may be helpful. Often, soft tissue reconstruction with an extensor mechanism allograft or muscle flap is required. Obviously, these are massive undertakings and should be done by experienced surgeons. If a prosthesis is not a good option, other options include definitive resection, knee arthrodesis, or above knee amputation. A careful discussion with the patient about the pros and cons is necessary to allow them to partner with the surgeon in the decision-making. Definitive resections are reserved for minimal to non-ambulators with significant comorbidity that do not desire an AKA. AKA is often the best option, however, it should be noted that the majority of these patients will never ambulate with a prosthesis due to the energy requirements necessary to do so. High complication rates and reoperation rates have been reported with AKA after TKA. Functional outcome studies have generally shown better function with arthrodesis than with AKA. Arthrodesis can be effective and can be accomplished with several methods. If active infection is present, an external fixator is typically chosen. If no infection is present then plating or long intramedullary nailing is considered. Plating requires healthy anterior soft tissues due to the bulk associated with double plating techniques. The highest union rates have been reported with long nails. The author therefore prefers to use long nails after eradicating infection with a staged procedure (interval spacer) rather than to use an external fixator. Union rates are higher with nails, but the risk of re-infection is slightly higher as well. Careful attention to detail is necessary to minimise complications

Despite our best efforts, occasionally, certain patients will have multiply operated, failed reconstructions after TKA. There are situations where further attempts at arthroplasty are unwise, for example, chronic infections with multiple failed staged reconstructions. A careful preoperative evaluation of the patient is critical to guide decision-making. An assessment of medical comorbidity, functional demands, and expectations is important. Regarding the extremity, the severity of bone loss, soft tissue defects, ligamentous competency, and neurovascular status is important. The next step is to determine whether the knee is infected. The details of such a workup are covered in other lectures, however, the author prefers to aspirate all such knees and obtain C reactive protein and Sedimentation Rates. For equivocal cases, PCR may be helpful. If no infection is present, complex reconstruction is considered. Segmental megaprosthesis and hinged prostheses may be helpful. Often, soft tissue reconstruction with an extensor mechanism allograft or muscle flap is required. Obviously, these are massive undertakings and should be done by experienced surgeons. If a prosthesis is not a good option, other options include definitive resection, knee arthrodesis, or above knee amputation. A careful discussion with the patient about the pros and cons is necessary to allow them to partner with the surgeon in the decision-making. Definitive resections are reserved for minimal to non-ambulators with significant co-morbidity that do not desire an AKA. AKA is often the best option, however, it should be noted that the majority of these patients will never ambulate with a prosthesis due to the energy requirements necessary to do so. High complication rates and reoperation rates have been reported with AKA after TKA. Functional outcome studies have generally shown better function with arthrodesis than with AKA. Arthrodesis can be effective and can be accomplished with several methods. If active infection is present, and external fixator is typically chosen. If no infection is present then plating or long intramedullary nailing is considered. Plating requires healthy anterior soft tissues due the bulk associated with double plating techniques. The highest union rates have been reported with long nails. The author therefore prefers to use long nails after eradicating infection with a staged procedure (interval spacer) rather than to use an external fixator. Union rates are higher with nails, but the risk of re-infection is slightly higher as well. Careful attention to detail is necessary to minimise complications