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.

Introduction. Modular stems are commonly used to improve fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Hybrid fixation, in which cement is placed around the metaphysical portion of the component combined with an uncemented diaphyseal modular stem, has potential advantages including ease of insertion, improved component alignment, and ease of removal if needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical results of revision total knee arthroplasty with uncemented modular stems using a hybrid fixation technique with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Methods. 23 revision TKAs were performed in 21 patients with hybrid fixation using uncemented modular stems. 3 patients (3 knees) had died of causes unrelated to the index arthroplasty at the time of the study, and 1 patient (1 knee) was lost to the follow-up. The remaining 19 knees were clinically and radiographically evaluated for the present study. The average follow-up time was 9.5 years. The average age of the patients was 70.5 years at the time of the revision surgery. The average time between the primary and revision surgeries was 10.6 years. Results. The reasons for the revision of the 19 knees were aseptic loosening in 14 knees and breakage of polyethylene or implant in 5 knees. The mean postoperative range of motion was 110.2 degrees at the time of the most recent follow-up. The mean postoperative knee and function scores were 80.6 and 50.8, respectively. Periprosthetic radiolucencies were found adjacent to 2 tibial components and an asymptomatic cortical thickening around the end-of-stem was found in 1 tibial component. There were no intra- or postoperative complications resulting from the prosthesis implantation with this technique. Discussion. Revision TKA with hybrid fixation demonstrated excellent clinical results in terms of survival rate at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Although the ideal fixation of modular stems in revision TKA remains unclear, this study demonstrated that hybrid fïxation can be a viable option to provide durable fixation

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

Over the past 30 years, cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation options have been utilised with various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant systems. While cemented components are widely used and considered the most reliable method of fixation, historical results may not be applicable to contemporary patients, who are increasingly younger than 65 years of age. Moreover, the literature is not definitive on which method of TKA fixation obtains the best clinical, functional, and radiographic results. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis on roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) included five randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in 297 participants. The authors observed that cemented fixation of tibial components demonstrated smaller displacement in relation to cementless fixation. However, the risk of future aseptic loosening with uncemented fixation was approximately half that of cemented fixation (risk ratio = 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) with a 16% absolute risk difference between groups. Almost all included studies recorded functional measures of Knee Society and Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores, but the authors of each study found no significant difference between the groups. Recently, highly porous metals have become an attractive fixation option in TKA due to their biomechanical properties. In a large RCT of 397 patients, Pulido et al found that uncemented highly porous metal tibias provided comparably durable fixation and reliable pain relief and restoration of function when compared with traditional cemented modular tibias. While longer term studies are needed, cementless TKAs may be a durable and reliable alternative with highly porous metals, particularly in younger patients

Introduction. Bone loss management represents one of the most challenging issues for the orthopaedic surgeon. In most cases, stems, structural allograft, TMcones, and sleeves are adequate to allow optimal implant stability and durable fixation. In selected cases of wide metadiaphyseal bone defects, these devices do not provide proper intraoperative stability. In such scenarios, further steps are needed and include complex modular reconstruction, substitution with megaprosthesis (exposing patients at high risk of early failure) or joint arthrodesis that can yield unacceptable results. The aim of this paper is to present early results obtained with a new custom-made implant for complex metadiaphyseal bone defects management in knee revision surgery. By means of case presentations the authors would highlight the possibilities and technical notes of this novel device in complex knee revision surgery. Methods. Since2015, 8 custom-made porous titanium devices were implanted for massive bone defect management in 6 knee arthroplasty revision procedures. Five patients were staged revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and one patient underwent a staged revision for post-traumatic septic arthritis. Main demographic and surgical data were collected. Clinical (Range of Movement [ROM], Knee Society Score [KSS] and Oxford Knee Score [OKS]), radiological findings and complications were recorded at different time points and statistically evaluated. Mean follow up was 19.5 ± 9.6months. Results. The study group included 4 males and 2 females with a mean age of 63.7 ± 5.5 years and a mean Body Mass Index of 29.3 ± 4.1. Globally, the mean number of previous surgeries was 4.8 ± 2.7. The custom made device was combined with a hinged prosthesis in 5 cases and with a constrained condylar implant in 1 patient. Hybrid fixation was used in all cases. The mean KSS and OKS of the entire population improved significantly from 35.3 ±6.5 and 19.2 ±3.5 preoperatively to 85.8 ±4.0 and 39.3 ±3.1 at the time of last follow-up evaluation (p<0.01). The range of motion improved from 46.7 ±9.8 of mean preoperative flexion and 7.8 ±6.8 of mean preoperative flexion contracture to 93.3 ±10.3 and 1.2 ±2.9 respectively (p<0.01). Radiological analysis showed no migration or implant loosening. No intraoperative or postoperative complication was recorded. One patient required a prolonged antibiotic therapy for positive culture samples of sonication of the retrieved spacer. No implant mismatch between the preoperative planning and the final implant was reported. Conclusion. The presented custom-made implant showed promising early clinical and radiological results. In extremely selected cases, this new device can be considered a safe and effective surgical step between “off the shelf” reconstruction implants and knee substitution with a tumor megaprosthesis. Accurate surgical planning and intraoperative management of soft tissues and residual bone stock are of paramount importance

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating preoperative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Porous metal cones or sleeves 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites; 8) Custom implants. Of these, use of uncemented highly porous metal metaphyseal cones in combination with an initial cemented or partially cemented implant has been shown to provide versatile and highly durable results for a range of bone defects including those previously requiring structural bone graft. The hybrid fixation combination of both cement and cementless fixation of an individual tibial or femoral component has emerged as a frequent and often preferred technique. Initial secure and motionless interfaces are provided by the cemented portions of the construct, while subsequent bone ingrowth to the cementless porous metal portions is the key to long term stable fixation. As bone grows into the porous portions there is off loading and protection of the cemented interfaces from mechanical stresses. While maximizing support on intact host bone has been a longstanding fundamental principle of revision arthroplasty, this is facilitated by the use of metaphyseal cones or sleeves in combination with initial fixation into the adjacent diaphysis. Preoperative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the preoperative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intraoperative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions, the degree of revision implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus, some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects, especially of the cavitary sort, may be well managed with minimal constraint

Over the past 30 years, cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation options have been utilised with various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant systems. While cemented components are widely used and considered the most reliable method of fixation, historical results may not be applicable to contemporary patients, who are increasingly younger than 65 years of age. Moreover, the literature is not definitive on which method of TKA fixation obtains the best clinical, functional, and radiographic results. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis on roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) included five randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in 297 participants. The authors observed that cemented fixation of tibial components demonstrated smaller displacement in relation to cementless fixation. However, the risk of future aseptic loosening with uncemented fixation was approximately half that of cemented fixation (risk ratio = 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) with a 16% absolute risk difference between groups. Almost all included studies recorded functional measures of Knee Society and Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores, but the authors of each study found no significant difference between the groups. Recently, highly porous metals have become an attractive fixation option in TKA due to their biomechanical properties. In a large RCT of 397 patients, Pulido et al found that uncemented highly porous metal tibias provided comparably durable fixation and reliable pain relief and restoration of function when compared with traditional cemented modular tibias. While longer-term studies are needed, cementless TKAs may be a durable and reliable alternative with highly porous metals, particularly in younger patients

Background. Peri-prosthetic humerus fractures are relatively uncommon occurrences that can be difficult to manage non-operatively. Locking plate technology has enhanced the surgical management of these fractures. We describe an osteosynthesis technique utilizing a locking plate with eccentrically placed screw holes to place “skive screws” in the proximal end of the plate to achieve fixation around the stem of the implant. Methods. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for a consecutive series of patients treated with this skive screw technique from May 2011 to September 2014. Seven patients presented with postoperative type B peri-prosthetic humerus fractures. Average follow-up was 24 months. Radiographic analysis was performed on most recent postoperative imaging. Clinical outcomes were assessed using VAS pain, ASES total score, ASES functional score, SST, SANE, range of motion and strength. Results. At an average of follow-up of 24 months, all patients demonstrated fracture healing. Functional outcomes were limited with only two patients achieving forward elevation above 90 degrees and average ASES Function score was 27.5. Pain relief was nearly uniform with an average VAS Pain score of 0.5 (Figure 1). Conclusions. Peri-prosthetic humeral shaft fractures can be successfully treated with hybrid fixation technique using a locking plate with eccentric holes that facilitate placement of proximal “skive screws”. Using this technique, a 100% union rate was observed with excellent pain relief

Hybrid fixation of total joint arthroplasty has been an accepted form of surgical approach in multiple joints. Principles of implant fixation should focus on durability providing secure long-term function. To date there is no conclusive evidence that pressed fit humeral stem fixation has an advantage over well-secured cemented humeral fixation. In fact, need for revision arthroplasty due to inadequate implant fixation has almost universally revolved around failure of cement fixation and loosening of the glenoid component. A case will be made based on 30 years of experience of one surgeon performing total shoulder arthroplasty using secure modern cement fixation techniques of humeral components. More recently, over the last 10 years, extremely high rate of durable secure glenoid implant fixation has been achieved using tantalum porous anchorage with polyethylene glenoid components. This has resulted in no cases of loosening of glenoid fixation and only 1 case of glenoid component fracture with greater than 95% survivorship over a 10 year period. A combination of well cemented humeral stem and trabecular metal anchorage of the glenoid has provided durable lasting function in primary total shoulder arthroplasty

Hip Resurfacing in its current metal on metal hybrid fixation form has been performed in large numbers in Australia since 1999. Outcomes from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry are shown. While there is a wide range of outcomes these can be shown to depend on patient factors and implant factors. Use of one of the successful implants (for example the Birmingham Hip) in a young male patient with osteoarthritis by a suitably trained surgeon can lead to good results. In the AOA NJRR the 10 year cumulative percent revision rate for the Birmingham Hip in male patients under the age of 60 at the time of surgery is 3.3%

Over the past several decades, cementless femoral fixation for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) has become more common in North America. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all primary THAs completed in the United States are cementless. In the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, the use of cementless fixation has increased from 51.3% in 2003 to 63.3% in 2015. During the same time period, cemented fixation declined from 13.9% to 3.7%, but hybrid fixation was relatively stable at about 33%. This is likely related to the fact that multiple institutional and national registries have shown a higher rate of intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures with the use of cementless femoral components in certain patient populations. Those risk factors include patients greater than 65 years of age, female patients, and those with significant osteoporosis and Dorr C canals. However, it is important to note that not all cementless femoral components are similar. In fact, there is great variation in not only the geometry of cementless femoral components, but also in the type and extent of the biologic ingrowth surfaces. Each design has unique advantages and disadvantages. While some cementless femoral components are indicated for the general population, some are more specific and tailored to complex primary THAs (such as developmental dysplasia of the hip or post-traumatic arthritis with intra-operative concern for femoral version and thus hip stability) or revision procedures where distal fixation is needed (such as those with periprosthetic fractures or lack of proximal metaphyseal bony support). In 2000, Berry first described the evolution of cementless femoral components based upon distinct geometries that govern where fixation is obtained. This was modified in 2011 by Khanuja et al. to include six general types of cementless femoral components based upon shape. These include the following: Type 1: Single wedge; Type 2: Double edge with metaphyseal filling; Type 3: Tapered - A: Tapered round, B: Tapered spline/cone, C: Tapered rectangle; Type 4: Cylindrical fully coated; Type 5: Modular; Type 6: Anatomic. Type 1, 2, and 6 cementless femoral components obtain fixation in the metaphysis, whereas Type 3 stems obtain fixation in the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction. Type 4 stems obtain fixation in the diaphysis. Type 5 stems can obtain fixation in either the metaphysis or the diaphysis. Within each type of stem, specific implant designs have had excellent long-term survivorship, while other specific implant designs have had higher than expected failure rates. Type 1 stems have the most published reports, and most contemporary reports indicate a stem survivorship greater than 95% at 15–20 years. Similar findings have been documented with specific implants from other types of stems when appropriate indications and surgical technique are utilised. Of note, one class of stems that has shown early failures due to adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) is that of dual-modular necks. On the other hand, modular fluted tapered stems continue to produce excellent long-term data in complex primary THAs, as well as difficult revision THAs

Purpose. Although the use of stems in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) enhances survival by improving the stability of implant, questions as to the optimal fixation method as well as the vertical extent of the cement, remain unanswered. This study aimed 1) to determine the correlation between the vertical extent of cement and implant loosening; and 2) to determine the minimum cementing extent for a stable implant in revision TKA with a hybrid technique. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 109 stemmed RTKAs with average follow-up of 63 months. In each case, a single varus-valgus constrained implant was used and fixed with a hybrid technique. During surgery, stem was partially covered with cement beyond stem-implant junction. Stability of implant was evaluated according to the modified Knee Society Radiographic Scoring System. Cementing extent was defined as length from implant base to the end of the radiopaque line around the stem. The correlation between the vertical cementing extent and implant stability was analyzed, and the minimal vertical cementing extent for a stable implant was evaluated with a scatter plot. Results. The vertical cementing extent was longer in stable implants (femur: P=.002, tibia:P=.007) and the correlation between the vertical cementing extent and implant stability was significant (femur:P<.001, tibia:P=.001). Logistic regression analysis found that the risk of loosening was 8.7 times higher if the cementing extent was less than 40mm (tibia=16.1 times). The minimal vertical cementing extent for a stable implant in femur was estimated to be 65mm for middle stem (40% of total implant length) and 50mm for long stem (25% of total implant length). For tibia, it was 55mm for middle stem (45% of total implant length) and 40mm for long stem (25% of total implant length). Conclusion. We confirmed that a negative correlation exists between the radiolucent line and the cementing extent in stemmed revision TKA with a hybrid fixation technique. We could expect a durable implant in revision TKA with a minimal vertical cementing extents and it was 65mm for the femur and 55mm for the tibia. Level of Evidence. IV, Cases series

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

Direct Anterior vs Mini-posterior THA with Advanced Pain & Rehab Protocols. Intra-articular Injection Within a Year of THA Predicts Early Revision. Specific Screening of MoM Hip Patients Significantly Increases Revision Surgery. Taper Analysis Supports Retention of Well-fixed Stem in Revision of MoM THA. Variables Influencing Corrosion of Modular Junctions in Metal-on-Poly THR. Lysis and Wear of Large and Standard Metal on Highly Crosslinked Poly. A Decade of Highly Crosslinked Poly in THA: A Review of 1,484 Cases. Wear of Highly Crosslinked Poly with 36mm Heads – 5 Yr Follow Up. Fixation and Wear of Contemporary Acetabulum and Crosslinked Poly at 10 Years. Prospective, Randomised Study of 2 Skin Preps in Reducing SSI after TJA. Diagnostic Threshold for Synovial Fluid Analysis in Late Peri-prosthetic Infection, Diabetes, Hyperglycemia, Hemoglobin A1c and the Risk of Joint Infections. Infection Risk Stratification in THA and TKA. Risk Factors for Infection After THA: Preventable vs Non-preventable. Do Space Suits Increase Contamination and Deep Infection in TJA. Improving Detection of PJI in THA Through Multiple Sonicate Fluid Cultures. Sonication for the Enhanced Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection. Aspiration During 2-Stage Knee Revision Inadequate for Infection Detection. Revision Rates and Outcomes Related to Duration of TKA Surgery. Does Operative Time Affect Infection Rate Following Primary TKA?. Liposomal Bupivacaine: The First 1,000 Cases in a New Era. Cement Depth and Stem Stability in Revision TKA with Hybrid Fixation

Over the past 30 years, cemented, cementless, and hybrid fixation options have been utilised with various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant systems. While cemented components are widely used and considered the most reliable method of fixation, historical results may not be applicable to contemporary patients, who are increasingly younger than 65 years of age. Moreover, the literature is not definitive on which method of TKA fixation obtains the best clinical, functional, and radiographic results. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis on roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) included five randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in 297 participants. The authors observed that cemented fixation of tibial components demonstrated smaller displacement in relation to cementless fixation. However, the risk of future aseptic loosening with uncemented fixation was approximately half that of cemented fixation (risk ratio = 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) with a 16% absolute risk difference between groups. Almost all included studies recorded functional measures of Knee Society and Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores, but the authors of each study found no significant difference between the groups. Recently, highly porous metals have become an attractive fixation option in TKA due to their biomechanical properties. In a large RCT of 397 patients, Pulido et al. found that uncemented highly porous metal tibias provided comparably durable fixation and reliable pain relief and restoration of function when compared with traditional cemented modular tibias. While longer-term studies are needed, cementless TKAs may be a durable and reliable alternative with highly porous metals, particularly in younger patients

Background. The development of T-smart tomosynthesis has greatly improved the imaging quality of THA by reducing the peri-implant artifacts. In order to find out whether these improvements could lead to diagnostic advantages on stability of cementless THA arthroplasty components, we conducted a diagnostic research by comparing T-smart tomosynthesis, X-ray, and computed tomography. Methods. We retrospectively included 48 patients who undergone THA revisions in our center between Aug, 2013 and Mar, 2014. For patients with hybrid fixation as their primary prosthesis, the femoral or acetabular components with cement fixation were excluded. There were 41 cementless femoral stems and 35 cementless acetabular cups remained for evaluation. All patients took anterior-posterior and lateral view x-ray examination, anterior-posterior T-smart tomosynthesis scan, and computed tomography before revision surgery. As the gold standard, intraoperative pull-out tests and twisting tests were done for every patient to examine the stability of all implants. 7 orthopedic surgeons evaluated the preoperative images independently, who were divided into the senior group (3 doctors with 6∼13 years’ clinical experience) and the junior group (4 doctors with 2∼4 years’ clinical experience). The x-rays were evaluated first, followed by computed tomography 4 weeks later, and after another 4 weeks’ interval the T-smart tomosynthesis were assessed. All doctors used the same criteria for diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for each imaging examination was calculated by comparing with the results of intraoperative tests. The diagnostic accuracy, kappa values between 3 imaging techniques were calculated, and chi-square tests were conducted to examine the difference between the senior and junior groups for each technique. Results. The accuracy of T-smart tomosynthesis on stability diagnosis (loosening or stable) is 82.6% for femoral stem and 84.5% for acetabular cup. The accuracy of X-ray is 44.3% for stem and 67.3% for cup, and the accuracy of CT is 39.6% for stem and 74.6% for cup. The kappa values between the 3 techniques range from −0.053 to 0.22. For plain X-ray, The diagnostic accuracy of the senior group is significantly higher than that of the junior group (p<0.05), but no significance was found between the 2 groups for tomosynthesis and CT. Discussion. Our research indicates that, compared with x-ray and CT, the T-smart tomosynthesis technique can greatly improve the diagnostic accuracy on stability of cementless THA components, and significantly shorten the learning curve of inexperienced surgeons. With T-smart tomosynthesis, the peri-implant trabecular bone can be clearly imaged with least metal artifacts ever. T-smart tomosynthesis is an effective and promising imaging technique for diagnosing the stability of THA components

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THR) with non-cemented or hybrid fixation remains one of the most successful procedures performed today. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a hydroxyapatite (HA) coated, hemispherical cup. Material and Methods. Between 2003 and 2007, 223 THAs (210 patients) with peripheral self-locking (PSL) cup and highly cross-linked polyethylene (Crossfire, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) with minimum 5 years clinical and radiographic follow-up (5–9 years) were analyzed. The mean age was 62.5 years ± 10.8 (range, 32.7 – 86.3) at the time of surgery and the predominant preoperative diagnoses was osteoarthritis (97.8%). 72% were solid cups without screw augmentation and 28% were multi-hole with screw. Clinical analysis included Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) hip scores at latest follow-up. Detail radiographic analysis was carried out on anteroposterior and false profile views for evidence of osseointegration in all Charnley's zones. Osseointegration was assessed based on presence of Stress Induced Reactive Cancellous Bone (SIRCaB) with trabecular bone hypertrophy 5–15mm extending from the cup, and absence of radiolucency or demarcation. EBRA software was used to assess cup positioning. Results. At final follow up, clinical result were excellent with average HSS score of 34.8. 4% underwent revision for following reasons: dislocation (1.34%), loose stem (0.89%), stem fracture (0.89%), pain/bursitis (0.45%), and infection (0.45%). There were no revisions for failures of fixation. In radiographic analysis, the average functional cup abduction angle and functional anteversion were 41.7° ± 5.2 (range, 30 – 52) and 16.8° ± 6.1 (range, 4 – 30). 96% of the cups were within the safezone of Lewinnek. There was no progressive radiolucency, migration or change in the cup position at final follow-up. The average overall SIRCaB and radial trabeculae in all 3 zones were 47% and 93%, respectively; both were most prevalent in Zone 1. Conclusion. The hemispherical, peripheral press-fit, HA-coated PSL cup has excellent safety and efficacy, appropriate radiographic osseointegration with no mechanical failures at 5 – 9 years. PSL cup has 1 mm increase in the radius at the periphery of the shell to allow for an enhanced initial press fit. Based on our results, supplementary screw with this cup may not lead to better fixation

Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is an alternative to cemented TKA and hybrid fixation. We present incidence of loosening of uncemented porus coated tibial trays (two to five years with a mean of 3.8 years) in our retrospective clinical and radiological follow up of 53 uncemented TKA in 40 patients. Between 2001 and 2007, 53 uncemented primary TKA were performed by two senior surgeons in 53 knees for 40 patients. This was for diagnosis of Osteoarthritis. Five patients underwent patellar resurfacing. Patients were evaluated at the six week mark, three months, one year and then yearly using Knee Society knee score. In addition, radiograph analysis was done to all patients during each visit and evaluated using Knee Society roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. The follow-ups have been done by independent surgeons. End point of failure is defined as revision. There were 14 revisions (12 for aseptic loosening, none for infection and one for component malposition, one for instability) among 53 knees. We found that there is significant increase in rate of tibial component loosening (26%), which is very high compared to rate of loosening with other series. There is radiographic evidence of loosening in four femoral prosthesis but one required revision. Intraoperatively we noticed that there is very poor osseointegration into tibial components. All of them have been revised with cemented tibial component. With our experience we conclude that uncemented porus coated Tibial trays have higher rates of failures because of poor osseointegration. And we recommend that all tibial trays need to be cemented

We present a retrospective review of a single-surgeon series of 30 consecutive lengthenings in 27 patients with congenital short femur using the Ilizarov technique performed between 1994 and 2005.

The mean increase in length was 5.8 cm/18.65% (3.3 to 10.4, 9.7% to 48.8%), with a mean time in the frame of 223 days (75 to 363). By changing from a distal to a proximal osteotomy for lengthening, the mean range of knee movement was significantly increased from 98.1° to 124.2° (p = 0.041) and there was a trend towards a reduced requirement for quadricepsplasty, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The overall incidence of regenerate deformation or fracture requiring open reduction and internal fixation was similar in the distal and proximal osteotomy groups (56.7% and 53.8%, respectively). However, in the proximal osteotomy group, pre-placement of a Rush nail reduced this rate from 100% without a nail to 0% with a nail (p < 0.001). When comparing a distal osteotomy with a proximal one over a Rush nail for lengthening, there was a significant decrease in fracture rate from 58.8% to 0% (p = 0.043).

We recommend that in this group of patients lengthening of the femur with an Ilizarov construct be carried out through a proximal osteotomy over a Rush nail. Lengthening should also be limited to a maximum of 6 cm during one treatment, or 20% of the original length of the femur, in order to reduce the risk of complications.