In years past, the most common reason for revision following knee replacement was polyethylene wear. A more recent study indicates that polyethylene wear is relatively uncommon as a cause for total knee revision counting for only 10% or fewer of revisions. The most common reason for revision currently is aseptic loosening followed closely by instability and infection. The time to revision was surprisingly short. In a recent series only 30% of knees were greater than 5 years from surgery at the time of revision. The most common time interval was less than 2 years. This is likely because of the higher incidence of infection and instability that occurs most commonly at a relatively early time frame. Evaluation of a painful total knee should take into account these findings. All total knees that are painful within 5 years of surgery should be assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. Therefore, virtually all should be aspirated for cell count, differential, and culture. Alpha-defensin is also available in cases in which a patient may have been on antibiotics within a month or less, as well as cases in which diagnosis is a challenge for some reason. Instability can be diagnosed with physical exam focusing on mid-flexion instability which can be usually determined with the patient seated and the knee in mid-flexion, with the foot flat on the floor at which point sagittal plane laxity can be discerned. This is also frequently associated with symptoms of giving way and recurring effusions and difficulty descending stairs. A new phenomenon of tibial de-bonding has been described, which can be a challenge to diagnose. Radiographs can appear normal when loosening occurs between the implant and the cement mantle. This seems to be more common with the use of higher viscosity cement. Obviously this is technique dependent since good results have been reported with the use of high viscosity cement. Component malposition can cause stiffness and pain and relatively good results have been reported by component revision when malrotation has been confirmed with CT scan. When infection, instability and loosening are not present, extra-articular causes should be ruled out including lumbar spine, vascular compromise, complex regional pain syndromes and fibromyalgia, and peri-articular causes such as bursitis, tendonitis, tendon impingement among others. One of the most common causes of pain following total knee is unrealistic patient expectations. Performing total knee replacement in early stages of arthritis with only mild to moderate symptoms and radiographic changes has been associated with persistent pain and dissatisfaction. It may be prudent to obtain the immediate preoperative x-rays to determine if early intervention was undertaken and patients have otherwise normal appearing total knee x-rays and a negative work up. A recent study indicated that this was likely a cause or a major contributing factor to persistent pain following otherwise a well performed knee replacement. A national multicenter study of the appropriateness of indications for TKA also indicated that early intervention was a major cause of persistent pain, dissatisfaction, and failure to improve following total knee replacement

The burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to rise and the management of this dreaded complication continues to pose challenges to the orthopaedic community. Dr Buchholz from the Endo Klinik has been credited for reporting the initial observation that addition of antibiotic to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement lead to better ability to deliver higher concentrations of antibiotic to the joint milieu and avoid administration of high doses of systemic antibiotics with potential for systemic toxicity. Addition of antibiotics to PMMA cement has continued to be an important aspect of managing patients with chronic PJI. The rationale for this practice is that higher doses of local antibiotics can be reached without placing the patients at risk of systemic toxicity. Whether a one-stage or a two-stage exchange arthroplasty is being performed, antibiotics that can withstand the exothermic reaction of PMMA and are able to elude from cement are added at various doses to the PMMA for later delivery. Although this practice continues to be almost universal, there are a few unknowns. First of all, a recent study raised a valid question regarding this practice. Though intuitively logical, addition of antibiotics to PMMA spacers has not been scrutinised by any level 1 study and hence one is not able to prove that this practice does indeed accomplish its intended objectives of reducing recurrence or persistence of infection. Orthopaedic community is advised to seek avenues to generate this much-needed evidence. The other main unknown is how much, and in some instances which antibiotic, needs to be added to the PMMA cement. Some authorities have declared that antibiotics can be added at high doses, with an average total dose of 10.5 g of vancomycin (range, 3–16 g) and 12.5 g of gentamicin (range, 3.6–19.2 g) in one study, to PMMA cement without the fear of systemic toxicity. In recent years, renal toxicity and other systemic adverse effects have been attributed to addition of high doses of antibiotics to cement. I have personally witnessed such adverse reactions in a few patients. Although initially I was inclined to “blame” the concurrent administration of systemic antibiotics for the renal toxicity that patients developed following insertion of spacer, selective nephrotoxicity (i.e. reaction to aminoglycoside that was only present in the spacer and not systemically administered) and resolution of the nephrotoxicity upon removal of antibiotic spacer, convinced me that our nephrology colleagues have a valid reason to be concerned about addition of high doses of antibiotics to PMMA spacers. What has become clear is that high viscosity cements containing MA-MMA copolymers have been shown to have better antibiotic elution profiles than other PMMA formulations. So when fashioning a spacer in the operating room the surgeon needs to be aware of the differences in elution profile of antibiotics from PMMA and individualise the dose of antibiotics being added to spacer based on the type and viscosity of cement being used and the renal status of the patient. Thus, systemic toxicity caused by addition of antibiotics to cement spacer appears to be a real issue in some circumstances and this needs to be born in mind when managing patients with PJI. There are numerous other issues related to the use of antibiotic cement spacers. In the hip, the lack of adequate offset and limited portfolio of products result in laxity in the soft tissue and subsequent dislocation of the hip. In addition, the dose and type of antibiotic in the premanufactured spacers, at least in the US, are inadequate to lead to a substantial delivery of antibiotics in the local tissues. Because of these issues, I prefer to fabricate “customised” spacers for each patient that I operate on

Introduction. Acetabular cup lucency predicts cup survival. The relationship of subchondral plate removal and cup survival is unclear. Using data from a prospective study conducted between January 1999 and January 2002 we investigated the role of subchondral plate removal in cemented acetabular cup survival at five years. Methods. A number of cemented cups were implanted using antero-lateral and posterior approaches.1400 cups were inserted. 935 cups (67%) were followed up at 5 years and acetabular radiolucency (AR) recorded. Results. F: M ratio was 1.88. The mean age was 66 (range 23–94). 325 cups had AR. AR was commonest in zone 1 (274). 126 cups has AR isolated to zone 1 only. AR ranged from 1–3 mm. Bone surface was clean and dry in 780 cases. High viscosity cement was used in 1391cases. Simplex was the commonest cement used (749) followed by CMW1 (347). Conventional UHMWPE acetabular liner was used in 755 and “Duration” in 644 patients. 719 Exeter cups and 363 flanged cups were inserted. Acetabular roof was decorticated in 844 and cement pressurised in 1269 cups. AR was more common if cement was not pressurised (52/78 not pressurised vs 268/850 pressurised, p=0.000), if subchondral plate was removed (219/561, p=0.002), and if Simplex or CMW1 was used instead of Palacos (p=0.000). AR after subchondral plate removal was equally common in the young and the older patients (>65 years). There was no difference in cup (p=0.55) or pressuriser type (p= 0.45) between those with or without AR. In a logistic regression model only cement pressurisation and type of cement used were predictive of AR (n=895, p=0.000). Subchondral bone removal became insignificant (p=0.443). Discussion. AR was only affected by cement pressurisation and type of cement used. Subchondral plate removal did not prove likely to affect 5 year cup survival

Cemented total hip arthroplasty has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long term results. Although showing decreasing popularity in North America, it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in Europe and other parts of the world. Besides optimal component orientation, a proper cementing technique is of major importance to assure longevity of implant fixation. Consequently a meticulous bone bed preparation assures the mechanical interlock between the implant component, cement and the final bone bed. Cementing the acetabular side should include preservation of the transverse acetabular ligament and clear identification of the medial wall. Medialisation and deepening of the socket are important at reaming, to ensure a containment of the cup. The contact of the cup to cancellous bone should be maximised. Either smaller reamers or 4–6mm anchoring holes can be drilled to the superior sclerosis. Smaller defects can be curettage, while larger ones might require cancellous bone grafting. Of major importance is the thoroughly pulsatile jet lavage with saline to irrigate the cancellous bone bed, to reduce fat and blood lamination. After final irrigation, before cementation, dry sponges are slightly impacted into the cavity, to dry it out. Cementation usually requires 40g of high viscosity bone cement. Immediate pressurisation of the cement into the bone bed should start after a general application time in our institution between 2.5 to 3 minutes after mixing; with either a sterile glove filled with a sponge or designated company specific pressuriser. Sustained pressurisation should be done for 1 minute. The original cup should be 3–4mm smaller than the last reamer, to ensure circumferential cement mantle. Insertion principle includes medialisation first, followed by gradual angulation of the cup. In appropriate position, a balled pressuriser maintains pressure without further moving of the implant, until cement hardening. Remnant cement can be removed with osteotomes, while remaining osteophytes should be flush with implant. Femoral Side: First the fossa pyriformis should be clearly identified, including the posterolateral entry point of the prosthesis. The femoral neck cut is usually 1.5–2cm above the minor trochanter, based on the preoperative planning and implant type. Opening of the canal is done with an awl or osteotome, followed by any blunt tipped instrument, to follow the intramedullary direction. A box osteotome opens the lateral portion of the femoral neck, gently to preserve as much cancellous bone as possible. Sequential broaching follows carefully and according to the planning, to ensure preservation of 2–3mm cancellous bone for interdigitation. Some systems might require over-broaching by one size. Trialing is done with the broach. Following, irrigation using a long nozzle pulsatile lavage, reduces the chance for fat embolism. A cement restrictor is then placed 1.5–2cm distal to the tip of the stem, to ensure an adequate cement mantle distally. A second complete pulsatile irrigation of the canal follows, to minimise bleeding, followed by a dry sponge. Cement mixing is vacuum based in the meantime, usually 60–80g. We prefer the use of low dose antibiotic laden cement in our set up. Two to three minutes after mixing, the cement is applied rapidly in a retrograde technique with a cement gun, placing the nozzle tip against the cement restrictor. The gun is “pushed” out during the application, rather than being withdrawn from the canal. Proximal pressurisation is first done by thumb, then with a proximal seal for 1 minute. The stem is inserted slowly using steady manual pressure, in the center of the cement mantle, however, should never be impacted. The stem is aligned with the previously defined lateral entry point and is held in position until the cement hardens. The desired outcome is a cement interdigitation into cancellous bone for 2–3mm and an additional mantle of 2mm pure cement