This study aimed to analyze the effect of two different techniques of cement application: cement on bone surface (CoB) versus cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI) on the short-term effect of radiolucent lines (RLL) in primary fully cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKA) with patella resurfacing. 379 fully cemented TKAs (318 patients) were included in this monocentric study. Preoperative and postoperative at week 4 and 12 month after surgery all patients had a clinical and radiological examination and were administered the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Cement was applied in two different ways among the two study groups: cement on bone surface (CoB group) or cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI group). The evaluation of the presence of RLL or osteolysis was done as previously described using the updated Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System. The mean OKS and range of motion improved significantly in both groups at the 4-week and 12-month follow-up, with no significant difference between the groups (CoB vs. CoBaI). RLL were present in 4.7% in the whole study population and were significantly higher in the CoBaI group (10.5%) at the 4-week follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up RLL were seen in 29.8% of the TKAs in the CoBaI group, whereas the incidence was lower in the CoB group (24.0% (n.s.)). There were two revisions in each group. None of these due to aseptic loosening. Our study indicated that the application of bone cement on bone surface only might be more beneficial than onto the bone surface and onto the implant surface as well in respect to the short-term presence of RLL in fully cemented primary TKA. The long-term results will be of interest, especially in respect to aseptic loosening and might guide future directions of bone cement applications in TKA

Constrained implants with intra-medullary fixation are expedient for complex TKA. Constraint is associated with loosening, but can correction of deformity mitigate risk of loosening?. Primary TKA's with a non-linked constrained prosthesis from 2010-2018 were identified. Indications were ligamentous instability or intra-medullary fixation to bypass stress risers. All included fully cemented 30mm stem extensions on tibia and femur. If soft tissue stability was achieved, a posterior stabilized (PS) tibial insert was selected. Pre and post TKA full length radiographs showed. i. hip-knee-ankle angles (HKAA). ii. Kennedy Zone (KZ) where hip to ankle vector crosses knee joint. 77 TKA's in 68 patients, average age 69.3 years (41-89.5) with OA (65%) post-trauma (24.5%) and inflammatory arthropathy (10.5%). Pre-op radiographs (62 knees) showed varus in 37.0%. (HKAA: 4. o. -29. o. ), valgus in 59.6% (HKAA range 8. o. -41. o. ) and 2 knees in neutral. 13 cases deceased within 2 years were excluded. Six with 2 year follow up pending have not been revised. Mean follow-up is 6.1 yrs (2.4-11.9yrs). Long post-op radiographs showed 34 (57.6%) in central KZ (HKKA 180. o. +/- 2. o. ). . Thirteen (22.0%) were in mechanical varus (HKAA 3. o. -15. o. ) and 12 (20.3%) in mechanical valgus: HKAA (171. o. -178. o. ). Three failed with infection; 2 after ORIF and one with BMI>50. The greatest post op varus suffered peri-prosthetic fracture. There was no aseptic loosening or instability. Only full-length radiographs accurately measure alignment and very few similar studies exist. No cases failed by loosening or instability, but PPF followed persistent malalignment. Infection complicated prior ORIF and elevated BMI. This does not endorse indiscriminate use of mechanically constrained knee prostheses. Lower demand patients with complex arthropathy, especially severe deformity, benefit from fully cemented, non-linked constrained prostheses, with intra-medullary fixation. Hinges are not necessarily indicated, and rotational constraint does not lead to loosening

During revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), proximal tibial bone loss is frequently encountered and can result in a less-stable bone-implant fixation. A 3D printed titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) revision augment that conforms to the irregular shape of the proximal tibia was recently developed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fixation stability of rTKA with this augment in comparison to conventional cemented rTKA. Eleven pairs of thawed fresh-frozen cadaveric tibias (22 tibias) were potted in custom fixtures. Primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA) surgery was performed on all tibias. Fixation stability testing was conducted using a three-stage eccentric loading protocol. Static eccentric (70% medial/ 30% lateral) loading of 2100 N was applied to the implants before and after subjecting them to 5×103 loading cycles of 700 N at 2 Hz using a joint motion simulator. Bone-implant micromotion was measured using a high-resolution optical system. The pTKA were removed. The proximal tibial bone defect was measured. One tibia from each pair was randomly allocated to the experimental group, and rTKA was performed with a titanium augment printed using selective laser melting. The contralateral side was assigned to the control group (revision with fully cemented stems). The three-stage eccentric loading protocol was used to test the revision TKAs. Independent t-tests were used to compare the micromotion between the two groups. After revision TKA, the mean micromotion was 23.1μm ± 26.2μm in the control group and 12.9μm ± 22.2μm in the experimental group. There was significantly less micromotion in the experimental group (p= 0.04). Prior to revision surgery, the control and experimental group had no significant difference in primary TKA micromotion (p= 0.19) and tibial bone loss (p= 0.37). This study suggests that early fixation stability of revision TKA with the novel 3D printed titanium augment is significantly better then the conventional fully cemented rTKA. The early press-fit fixation of the augment is likely sufficient for promoting bony ingrowth of the augment in vivo. Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term in-vivo fixation of the novel 3D printed augment

The “keel” is the relatively short part of the undersurface of the tibial component that extends into the medullary canal. Most knee replacement systems have the capacity to attach modular stem extensions for enhanced intra-medullary fixation for revision. Diaphyseal length, large diameter stems may also guide positioning of trial components and are ideal for accurate surgical technique, even if fully cemented stems are eventually implanted. Smaller diameter non-modular stem extensions may be used for fully cemented fixation. They do not however guide component position very accurately and do not make sense for uncemented fixation. Revision surgery is different from primary surgery and enhanced fixation with some type of intramedullary fixation is highly appropriate, especially if constrained devices might be required. Options for enhanced intramedullary fixation are: 1. Fully cemented metaphyseal or shorter stems; 2. Diaphyseal engaging press fit stems; and 3. Very short fully cemented stems with trabecular metal cone fixation. Metaphyseal length press fit stems do not provide reliable fixation in revision TKA. Revision with primary components or constrained components without any stem extension is not advised

Purpose:. Glenoid loosening persists as a common cause of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) failure. Considering radiographic evidence of loosening as an endpoint, TSA has a reported survivorship of only 51.5% at 10 years. Component loosening may be related to cementation and it is postulated that poor cement penetration and heat-induced necrosis may partially be responsible. There is a growing interest among surgeons to minimize or abandon cement fixation and rely on biologic fixation to the polyethylene for long-term fixation. De Wilde et al. reported promising early clinical and radiographic results using a pegged, all-polyethylene ingrowth glenoid design implanted without cement. The goal of this study was to compare glenoid micromotion in an all-polyethylene, centrally fluted pegged glenoid using 3 cement fixation techniques. Materials and Methods:. Glenoid components (Anchor Peg Glenoid, Depuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA) (Figure 1) were implanted in polyurethane foam testing blocks with 3 different fixation methods (n = 5 per group). Group I glenoids were implanted with interference fit fixation with no added cement. Group II was implanted with a hybrid fixation, where only the peripheral pegs were cemented. Group III glenoids were fully cemented for implantation. Glenoid loosening was characterized according to ASTM Standard F-2028. The glenoid component and a 44 mm humeral head were mounted to a materials testing frame (858 Mini Bionix II, MTS Crop., Eden Prairie, MN, USA) with a 750N applied joint compressive force (Figure 1). A humeral head subluxation displacement of ± 0.5 mm was experimentally calculated as a value that simulates glenoid rim loading that may occur at higher load activities. For characterization of glenoid loosening, the humeral head was cycled 50,000 times along the superior-inferior glenoid axis, simulating approximately 5 years of device service. Glenoid distraction, compression, and superior-inferior glenoid migration were recorded with two differential variable reluctance transducers fixed to the glenoid prosthesis. Results:. All glenoid components completed the 50,000 cycles of humeral head translation successfully. With respect to glenoid distraction (Figure 2), interference fit fixation had significantly greater distraction compared to both hybrid and fully cemented fixation (p < 0.001). Hybrid fixation also displayed significantly higher distraction compared to fully cemented fixation (p < 0.001). In terms of glenoid compression (Figure 2), hybrid cementation had significantly greater compression compared to both interference-fit and fully cemented fixation (p < 0.001). Discussion:. This is the first biomechanics study comparing glenoid micromotion of a centrally fluted, pegged component using 3 different fixation techniques. Of all fixation methods, the fully cemented components displayed the least amount of motion in all parameters. Hybrid fixation exhibited lower distraction, higher compression, and comparable translation compared to interference-fit fixation. Results may indicate the differences in early motion and suggest little to no advantage of peripheral peg cementation over no cement with respect to initial fixation. Future studies are warranted to further evaluate interference-fit fixation as a viable option for implantation of a central fluted, all-polyethylene glenoid component

Introduction. The number of revisions of total knee replacements (TKR) increases annually. Because of reduced bone stock, stable fixation of the implant is important. The femoral and tibial components are usually cemented whereas stems can be placed either cemented or press-fit (hybrid construct). To assess the stability of revision TKR with either cemented or hybrid places implants a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was executed, by using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). The short-term results of this RCT showed no differences between the two groups in stability and clinical outcomes. Although there were no clinical or radiological signs of loosening, both groups showed implants micromotion > 1 mm or degree. These findings might indicate the possibility of loosening later in time; therefore, the current study investigated the stability of cemented versus hybrid-placed revision TKR 6.5 years after surgery. Additionally, clinical results were evaluated. Methods. Of the 32 patients in the original RCT, 23 (12 cement, 11 press-fit) were available for mid-term follow-up measures. RSA images taken at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively were used from the previous study. New RSA images were taken at median 6.5 years (range 5.4–7.3) postoperatively. Stability of the femoral and tibial implants was assessed by using model-based RSA software (RSAcore, Leiden, The Netherlands) to determine micromotion. Clinical results were evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), active flexion, and VAS pain and satisfaction. Stability and clinical outcome were compared between the two groups using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests when applicable. Results. The median total translation at 6.5 years was 0.37 (0.13–1.96) mm and median total rotation 0.62 (0.11 – 2.81)° for the femoral component. For the tibia component the median total translation was 0.41 (0.10 – 1.04) mm and the median total rotation 0.61 (0.09 – 1.99)°. There were no differences in total translation and total rotation of the femoral and tibial component between the two groups. Additionally, none of the clinical scores differed between the groups. Interestingly, in the group with cemented stems five tibia implants showed > 1 mm or degree migration compared to zero in the hybrid group (p=0.02; Figure 1). Conclusion. There was no difference in stability and clinical outcome between fully cemented and hybrid-placed revision TKR 6.5 years postoperatively. Until now micromotion >1 mm or degree in the tibial components of the cemented group has not yet resulted in re- revisions. The patients will be followed to examine the consequences of these amounts of micromotion in this type of implant in the long-term. Figure 1. Scatter plot of total translation (x-axis) and total rotation (y-axis) for the tibia component at 6.5 years follow-up for fully cemented and hybrid-placed revision TKA

Aim. To undertake a biomechanical study to determine the existence of any difference in the early tibial component fixation to bone, between two widely used techniques of cementation, which may confer an influence on implant survival. Method. 20 tibial saw bones were prepared by standard methods using extramedullary instrumentation to receive a fixed bearingtibial component (PFC, DePuy). Under controlled laboratory conditions, thetibial trayswere implanted with CMW cement using either of the two following cementation techniques (10 implants in each group): Full cementation–application of cement to the undersurface of the tibial tray, the keel, the cut surface of the tibia and its stem hole. Surface cementation – application of cement only to the undersurface of thetibial tray and the cut surface of the tibia. 72 hours after implantation, the fixation of the cemented components was assessed by determining the load to failure under controlled tensile stresses (using an Instron Electro-mechanical tensile tester). Results. The data suggested a two-stage process to failure with an initial de-bonding load preceding a peak load before failure. Highly significant differences between the two techniques were observed. The mean initial de-bond load for fully cemented implants was 1115N, compared to 590N for the surface cemented group (p<0.00005). The mean peak load before failure was also significantly greater in the fully cemented group (1830N vs 1370N, p<0.001). Conclusion. Full cementation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty confers greater initial fixation to bone than surface cementation and may therefore positively influence implant longevity

Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During reverse replacement the biomechanical forces are different on the humeral stem. Stem loosening during reverse replacement may have different factors than anatomic replacement. A systemic review of 41 reverse arthroplasty clinical studies compared the functional outcomes and complications of cemented and uncemented stems in approximately 1800 patients. There was no difference in the risk of stem loosening or revision between cemented and uncemented stems. Uncemented stems have at least equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with cemented stems during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is associated with fully cemented stems or well ingrown components that exclude potential synovial debris that may cause osteolysis

Stems provide short- and long-term stability to the femoral and tibial components. Poorer epiphyseal and metaphyseal bone quality will require sharing or offloading the femoral and tibial component interfaces with a stem. One needs to use stem technique most appropriate for each individual case because of variable anatomy and bone loss situations. The conflict with trying to obtain stability via the stem is that most stems are cylindrical but femoral and tibial metaphyseal/diaphyseal areas are conical in shape. Viable stem options include fully cemented short and long stems, uncemented long stems, offset uncemented stems, and a hybrid application of a cemented proximal end of longer uncemented diaphyseal engaging stems. Stems are not without their risk. The more the load is transferred to the cortex, the greater the risk of proximal interface stress shielding. A long uncemented stem has similar stress shielding as a short cemented stem. Long diaphyseal engaging stems that are cemented or uncemented have the potential to have end of stem pain, especially if more diaphyseal reaming is done to obtain greater cortical contact. A conical shaped long stem can provide more stability than a long cylindrical stem and avoid diaphyseal reaming. Use of long stems may create difficulty in placement of the tibial and femoral components in an optimal position. If the femoral or tibial components do not allow an offset stem insertion, using a long offset stem or short cemented stem is preferred. The amount of metaphyseal bone loss will drive the choice of stem used. Short cemented stems will not have good stability in poor metaphyseal bone without getting the cement out to the cortex. Long cemented stems provide satisfactory survivorship, however, most surgeons avoid cementing long stems due to the difficulty of removal, if a subsequent revision is required. If the metaphyseal bone is excellent, use of a short cemented stem or long uncemented stem can be expected to have good results. Long fully uncemented stems must have independent stability to be effective, or should be proximally cemented as a hybrid technique. Cases with AOI type IIb and III tibial and femoral defects are best managed with use of metaphyseal cones with short cemented stems or long hybrid straight or offset stems. Some studies also suggest that if the cone is very stable, no stem may be required. My preference is to use a short cemented stem or hybrid conical stem in patients with good metaphyseal bone. If significant metaphyseal bone loss is present, I will use a porous cone with either a short cemented stem, hybrid cylindrical or offset stem depending on the primary stability of the cone and whether the femoral or tibial component can be placed in an optimal position in patients with good metaphyseal bone

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most feared complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite improved peri-operative antibiotic management and local antibiotic-loaded bone cement PJI is reported in about 0.5–1.9 % of primary knee replacement. In case of revision knee arthroplasty the infection rate even occurs at about 8–10 %. Depending on an acute or late PJI several surgical methods are used to treat the infection. However, suffering of a late PJI, the only surgical procedure remains the exchange of the TKA in combination with a radical debridement and removal of all foreign material. In order to achieve complete debridement of the joint, the soft tissue must be radically excised. Frequently, the debridement of the posterior capsule causes severe difficulties, therefore it might be necessary to resect the collateral ligaments to be able to reach the posterior parts of the capsule. But this necessitates the use of a higher level of constraint such as a rotating or total hinge and fully cemented long stemmed revision implants. Furthermore, due to the cemented stems, a sufficient amount of antibiotic-loaded cement may be delivered to the bone as topical therapy. Up to now, several studies have shown excellent functional long-term results for hinge knee prostheses after PJI and a very good infection control rate. Advantages of the hinge knee prosthesis in cases of PJI are the opportunity for a complete debridement especially while addressing the posterior capsule after resection of the collateral ligaments and for delivering antibiotic-loaded bone cement at the stems of the prosthesis for topic therapy. Disadvantages are the need for a higher level of constraint and a possible higher blood loss due to the radical debridement

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening and settling of the implants which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Also, collateral ligament integrity may change following total knee replacement slightly after complete correction of a severe deformity that presents rarely as instability after several months. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by manual or radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate ligament retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained unlinked condylar design. Occasionally, a posterior cruciate ligament preserving design can be used in situations where the bone-stock is well preserved and the posterior cruciate ligament shows excellent structural integrity. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. Revision can range from simple polyethylene insert exchange to a thicker dimension, isolated component revision or complete revision of both femoral and tibial devices. During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space is achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. In cases with considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, a rotating hinge design should be utilised. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support or there is a hip prosthetic stem that prohibits a stem from engaging the isthmic cortex. However, it should be realised that later revision of the fully cemented revision implant may be quite difficult. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability early. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

In primary TKA, non- or semi-constrained TKA implants might have their limitations in the absence of collateral ligaments, severe deformity, large osseous defects and gross flexion-extension instability. Although most primary TKA indications can be solved with modular, non-hinged implants, an adequate balancing might require a relevant soft tissue release. This consequently adds complexity and operative time with less predictable results in the elderly patient. The current literature reporting on short- to mid-term results of rotating hinged implants in primary osteoarthritis shows some quite diverse results and consequently different interpretations of this implant type in primary knee arthroplasty. Although some authors were able to show good and excellent clinical results in 91% of patients and consequent survival rates of a rotating hinge implant after 15 years up to 96% in primary indications, others found high complication rates of up to 25% of all operated patients, which remains unclear for us and is inconsistent with our clinical results in primary and revision TKA in over 30 years of experience with the ENDO-Model rotating hinge implant. Our potential indications in the elderly for a rotating or pure hinged implant in primary TKA include: Complete MCL instability; Severe varus or valgus deformity (>20 degrees) with necessary relevant soft tissue release; Relevant bone loss including insertions of collaterals; Gross flexion-extension gap imbalance; Ankylosis; One staged implantation with specific antibiotics after PJI. Due to general limited soft tissues or hyperlaxity, patients with neuropathic joints, or lack of extensor mechanism should be considered for a complete hinged implant. The ENDO-model hinge has only been minimally adapted since its development in the 70´s, including fully cemented long stems, in modular and non-modular versions. We strictly reserve a rotational hinge in primary indications for patients >70 years with a combined varus alignment, whereas in severe valgus deformities, a complete hinged implant version should be used for our implant design

There has been an unprecedented increase in total knee replacement in recent years. The UK national joint registry recorded over 80,000 total knee replacements per year with a generally successful outcome. Improvements in modern knee replacement designs and surgical techniques has resulted in more and more young and active patients having knee replacements. Their more active lifestyles and increased life expectancy is also leading to a rise in revision knee surgery. The most common reason for revision knee replacement is for loosening as a result of wear and/or bone resorption. Revision knee tibial components typically use long stems to increase the stability in the presence of the proximal bone loss associated with implant removal and loosening. The stem design has been cited as a possible cause of the clinically reported pain at the stem end region. The aim of this study was to experimentally validate a finite element (FE) model and the analysis different load conditions and stem orientations in a stemmed tibial component. CT-scans of a composite tibia (Sawbones) were utilized to form a multi-body solid consisting of cortical bone and cancellous bone with an intramedullary canal. A fully cemented tibial component (Stryker) was virtually implanted in the composite tibia with the stem-end centred in the cancellous bone. The tibial compartment loads were distributed with a 60:40 (Medial: Lateral) and 80:20 ratio to simulate a normal and varus type knee. Several stem-end positions were developed with the modification of the tibias proximal resection angle. An experimental study using strain gauges applied to the same composite tibia was used to compare the results with the FE-model. The model was validated with the strain gauged experimental test specimens demonstrating a similar pattern and magnitude of predicted strains. The simulation of different stem-end orientations revealed an increase in strain to the posterior cortex below the stem-end with the stem in direct contact to the posterior cortical bone. A tibial stem fully surrounded by cancellous bone demonstrated a small increase to the proximal strains. The simulation of a varus aligned knee with a 80:20 (Medial: Lateral) load distribution shifted strain overall to the medial side and revealed a large increase of strain to the posterior-medial in the proximity of the stem-end. The intensification of the load on one side of the tibial plateau, associated with a varus aligned knee, developed the largest increase in strain beneath the stem-end region and is possibly a factor in the reported pain after surgery. The stem in close proximity to the posterior cortical bone is also a possible contributing factor to pain due to the increase of strain in the vicinity of the stem-end

The use of stems in revision TKA enhances implant stability and thus improves the survival rate. Stemmed components obtain initial mechanical stability when there is deficient metaphyseal bone. However the optimal method of stem fixation remains controversial, which includes selection of stem size, length or the use of cemented vs. cementless stems. Although postulated by many surgeons, there is no sufficient evidence, that cementless or hybrid fixation does perform better in the long term outcome, than cemented stems. In addition a number of studies, even from the U.S., suggested that there might be a benefit for the long term survival for cemented stems in revision TKA. Obviously cemented stems have some few advantages in revision set up as: topic antibiotic delivery and initial strong fixation. While main disadvantages arise during limited/poor bone quality for initial cancellous bone-cement fixation; revision with removal of a long cement mantle and re-cementing into a previously cemented canal. Furthermore removing a fully cemented implant can be much more time consuming. The Endo Klinik has currently over 30 years of experience utilising cemented stems in combination with a rotating hinge implant in revision TKA, including satisfactory long-term results. However we are aware of this technique associated limitations, including aseptic loosening and further conversion to a re-revision with necessary impaction bone grafting. Generally it has to be mentioned, that type of stem and reconstruction type if often driven by surgeons own and institutional preference

A “two-stage exchange” remains the gold standard for treatment of the infected TKA in North America. Although there is interest in “one-stage exchange” this technique is not as familiar to many US surgeons and it is unclear if the reported results of Europe can be translated to North American practice. Specific concerns include the “radicalness” of the debridement required (which oftentimes includes the collateral ligaments, hence the popularity of hinged implants where this approach is common) and the use of fully cemented stems, which are extremely difficulty to remove if infection recurs. Thus while the idea of a one stage exchange is attractive to many North American surgeons, careful study will be required to determine if success can be achieved with a more “conservative” debridement and the use of cementless stems which are preferred by some surgeons. The basic principles of a two-stage exchange include: Thorough debridement of all infected appearing foreign material and all cement; Placement of an interval antibiotic loaded spacer (note that the addition of antibiotics to bone cement is NOT FDA approved) – 4–6g of antibiotics per pkg of cement; typically vancomycin + tobramycin; Higher viscosity cement may be associated with higher elution; The combination of antibiotics also leads to higher elution. Antibiotic spacers can be “articulating” or “static”. Potential advantages of an articulating spacer include greater patient comfort and an easier approach at the second stage exchange as soft tissue tension and range of motion is maintained. However, these spacers are oftentimes more costly and can break or dislocate. The first stage is followed by approximately 6 weeks of organism specific IV antibiotics. An interdisciplinary approach with an infectious disease specialist, internal medicine and a nutritionist optimises outcomes. Our protocol then includes weekly ESR and CRP to monitor their trend. These labs are re-checked two weeks after cessation of antibiotics to ensure the trend has not changed. The knee is routinely aspirated at this time point and the fluid obtained sent for a synovial fluid WBC count with differential and cultures (although the value of such cultures is controversial). We have found that while the ESR and CRP are significantly lower than prior to removal of the infected implant, they often times DO NOT normalise and there is no specific cut-off value that predicts persistent infection

In primary TKA, non- or semi-constraint TKA implants might have their limitations in the absence of collateral ligaments, severe deformity, large osseous defects and gross flexion - extension instability. Although most primary TKA indications can be solved with modular, non-hinged implants, an adequate balancing might require a relevant soft tissue release. This consequently adds complexity and operative time with less predictable results in the elderly patient. The current literature reporting on short to mid-term results of rotating hinged implants in primary osteoarthritis shows some quite diverse results and consequently different interpretations of this implant type in primary knee arthroplasty. Although some authors were able to show good and excellent clinical results in 91% of patients and consequent survival rates of a rotating hinge implant after 15 years up to 96% in primary indications, others found high complication rates of up to 25% of all operated patients, which remains unclear for us and is inconsistent with our clinical results in primary and revision TKA in over 30 years of experience with the Endo-Model rotating hinge implant. Our potential indications in the elderly for a rotating- or pure-hinged implant in primary TKA include: Complete MCL instability, Severe varus or valgus deformity (>20 degrees) with necessary relevant soft tissue release, Relevant bone loss including insertions of collaterals, Gross flexion-extension gap imbalance, Ankylosis, One staged implantation with specific antibiotics after PJI. Due to general limited soft tissues or hyper laxity, patients with neuropathic joints, or lack of extensor mechanism should be considered to a complete hinged implant. The ENDO-model hinge has only been minimal adapted since its development in the 70's, including fully cemented long stems, in modular and non-modular versions. We strictly reserve a rotational hinge in primary indications for patients >70 years with a combined varus alignment, whereas in severe valgus deformities, a complete hinged implant version should be used for our implant design

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by manual or radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate ligament retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained unlinked condylar design that, although sometimes a posterior cruciate ligament preserving design can be used in situations where the bone-stock is well preserved. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space is achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. In cases with considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, then a rotating hinge design should be utilised. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support or there is a hip prosthetic stem that prohibits a stem from engaging the isthmic cortex. However, it should be realised that later revision of the fully cemented revision implant may be quite difficult. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, must revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained condylar design that are unlinked. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space are achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. If there is considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, then a rotating hinge design should be utilised. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support. However, revision of fully cemented revision implants may be quite difficult later. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

Purpose. Glenoid component loosening is a common reason for failed total shoulder arthroplasty. Multiple factors have been suggested as causes for component loosening that may be related to cement technique. The purpose of the study was to compare the load transfer across a polyethylene glenoid bone construct with two different cementing techniques. Method. Eight cadaveric specimens underwent polyethylene glenoid component implantation. Four had cement around the pegs only (CPEG) and four had cement across the entire back (CBACK) of the implant including around the pegs. Step loading was performed with a pneumatic actuator and a non-conforming humeral head construct capable of applying loads at various angles. Strain gauges were placed at the superior and inferior poles of the glenoid and position trackers were applied to the superior and inferior aspects polyethylene component. Micro CT data were obtained before and after the loading protocol. Results. During compressive loading, greater tension was recorded with the CBACK technique than with the CPEG technique. Compression was recorded superiorly when load was applied at 30 degrees while tension was recorded inferiorly. Greater displacement occurred with the CPEG group. Failure as defined on micro CT occurred more consistently with the CBACK technique than with the CPEG technique. Conclusion. Tension measurements and upward deflection of the polyethylene with compressive loading at lower angles was unexpected. Early failure of fully cemented glenoids may be due to the fragility of the cement mantle around the periphery of the implant. Tension at the bone cement interface and early cement fracture are unfavorable and this may be a mechanism of implant loosening