We describe 129 consecutive revision total hip replacements using a Charnley-Kerboull femoral component of standard length with impaction allografting. The mean follow-up was 8.2 years (2 to 16). Additionally, extramedullary reinforcement was performed using struts of cortical allograft in 49 hips and cerclage wires in 30.

There was one intra-operative fracture of the femur but none later. Two femoral components subsided by 5 mm and 8 mm respectively, and were considered to be radiological failures. No further revision of a femoral component was required. The rate of survival of the femoral component at nine years, using radiological failure as the endpoint, was 98%. Our study showed that impaction grafting in association with a Charnley-Kerboull femoral component has a low rate of subsidence. Reconstruction of deficiencies of distal bone with struts of cortical allograft appeared to be an efficient way of preventing postoperative femoral fracture for up to 16 years.

We report the mid-term results of femoral impaction grafting which was used in 53 patients during the second stage of a two-stage revision for an infected total hip replacement. We reviewed all cases performed between 1989 and 1998. All patients underwent a Girdlestone excision arthroplasty, received local and systemic antibiotics and subsequently underwent reconstruction, using femoral impaction grafting.

Four patients had further infection (7.5%), and four died within 24 months of surgery. One patient underwent revision of the stem for a fracture below its tip at ten months. This left 44 patients with a mean follow-up of 53 months (24 to 122). All had improved clinical scores and a satisfactory radiological outcome.

An experimental sheep model was used for impaction allografting of 12 hemiarthroplasty femoral components placed into two equal-sized groups. In group 1, a 50:50 mixture of ApaPore hydroxyapatite bone-graft substitute and allograft was used. In group 2, ApaPore and allograft were mixed in a 90:10 ratio. Both groups were killed at six months. Ground reaction force results demonstrated no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups at 8, 16 and 24 weeks post-operatively, and all animals remained active. The mean bone turnover rates were significantly greater in group 1, at 0.00206 mm/day, compared to group 2 at 0.0013 mm/day (p < 0.05). The results for the area of new bone formation demonstrated no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in thickness of the cement mantle (p > 0.05) and percentage ApaPore-bone contact (p > 0.05).

The results of this animal study demonstrated that a mixture of ApaPore allograft in a 90:10 ratio was comparable to using a 50:50 mixture.

The clinical and radiological results of 50 consecutive acetabular reconstructions in 48 patients using impaction grafting have been retrospectively reviewed. A 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and Apapore 60, a synthetic bone graft substitute, was used in all cases. There were 13 complex primary and 37 revision procedures with a mean follow-up of five years (3.4 to 7.6). The clinical survival rate was 100%, with improvements in the mean Harris Hip Scores for pain and function. Radiologically, 30 acetabular grafts showed evidence of incorporation, ten had radiolucent lines and two acetabular components migrated initially before stabilising.

Acetabular reconstruction in both primary and revision surgery using a 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground, irriadiated bone and Apapore 60 appears to be a reliable method of managing acetabular defects. Longer follow-up will be required to establish whether this technique is as effective as using fresh-frozen allograft.

Aims

Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone.

Aims

Femoral impaction bone grafting was first developed in 1987 using morselised cancellous bone graft impacted into the femoral canal in combination with a cemented, tapered, polished stem. We describe the evolution of this technique and instrumentation since that time.

There are few reports describing the technique of managing acetabular protrusio in primary total hip replacement. Most are small series with different methods of addressing the challenges of significant medial and proximal migration of the joint centre, deficient medial bone and reduced peripheral bony support to the acetabular component. We describe our technique and the clinical and radiological outcome of using impacted morsellised autograft with a porous-coated cementless cup in 30 primary THRs with mild (n = 8), moderate (n = 10) and severe (n = 12) grades of acetabular protrusio. The mean Harris hip score had improved from 52 pre-operatively to 85 at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 10). At final follow-up, 27 hips (90%) had a good or excellent result, two (7%) had a fair result and one (3%) had a poor result. All bone grafts had united by the sixth post-operative month and none of the hips showed any radiological evidence of recurrence of protrusio, osteolysis or loosening. By using impacted morsellised autograft and cementless acetabular components it was possible to achieve restoration of hip mechanics, provide a biological solution to bone deficiency and ensure long-term fixation without recurrence in arthritic hips with protrusio undergoing THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:37–40.

We describe the results of 81 consecutive revision total hip replacements with impaction grafting in 79 patients using a collared polished chrome–cobalt stem, customised in length according to the extent of distal bone loss. Our hypothesis was that the features of this stem would reduce the rate of femoral fracture and subsidence of the stem.

The mean follow-up was 12 years (8 to 15). No intra-operative fracture or significant subsidence occurred. Only one patient suffered a post-operative diaphyseal fracture, which was associated with a fall. All but one femur showed incorporation of the graft. No revision for aseptic loosening was recorded.

The rate of survival of the femoral component at 12 years, using further femoral revision as the endpoint, was 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.9 to 100), and at nine years using re-operation for any reason as the endpoint, was 94.6% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.2).

These results suggest that a customised cemented polished stem individually adapted to the extent of bone loss and with a collar may reduce subsidence and the rate of fracture while maintaining the durability of the fixation.

We report the long-term results of revision total hip replacement using femoral impaction allografting with both uncemented and cemented Freeman femoral components. A standard design of component was used in both groups, with additional proximal hydroxyapatite coating in the uncemented group. A total of 33 hips in 30 patients received an uncemented component and 31 hips in 30 patients a cemented component. The mean follow-up was 9.8 years (2 to 17) in the uncemented group and 6.2 years (1 to 11) in the cemented group. Revision procedures (for all causes) were required in four patients (four hips) in the uncemented group and in five patients (five hips) in the cemented group. Harris hip scores improved significantly in both groups and were maintained independently of the extent of any migration of the femoral component within the graft or graft–cement mantle.

Background. Ankle and hindfoot fusion in the presence of large bony defects represents a challenging problem. Treatment options include acute shortening and fusion or void filling with metal cages or structural allograft, which both have historically low union rates. Impaction grafting is an alternative option. Methods. A 2 centre retrospective review of consecutive series of 32 patients undergoing hindfoot fusions with impaction bone grafting of morselised femoral head allograft to fill large bony void defects was performed. Union was assessed clinically and with either plain radiography or weightbearing CT scanning. Indications included failed total ankle replacement (24 patients), talar osteonecrosis (6 patients) and fracture non-union (2 patients). Mean depth of the defect was 29 ±10.7 mm and mean maximal cross-sectional area was 15.9 ±5.8 cm. 2. Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis was performed in 24 patients, ankle arthrodesis in 7 patients and triple arthrodesis in 1 patient. Results. Mean age was 57 years (19–76 years). Mean follow-up of 22.8 ±8.3 months. 22% were smokers. There were 4 tibiotalar non-unions (12.5%), two of which were symptomatic. 10 TTC arthrodesis patients united at the tibiotalar joint but not at the subtalar joint (31.3%), but only two of these were symptomatic. The combined symptomatic non-union rate was 12.5%. Mean time to union was 9.6 ±5.9 months. One subtalar non-union patient underwent re-operation at 78 months post-operatively after failure of metalwork. Two (13%) patients developed a stress fracture above the metalwork that healed with non-operative measures. There was no bone graft collapse with all patients maintaining bone length. Conclusion. Impaction of morselised femoral head allograft can be used to fill large bony voids around the ankle and hindfoot when undertaking arthrodesis, with rapid graft incorporation and no graft collapse despite early loading. This technique offers satisfactory union outcomes without the need for shortening or synthetic cages

Introduction: Impaction grafting has become a popular technique to revise implants. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry reports its use for a third of all revisions. Yet, the technique is seen as demanding. A particular challenge is to achieve sufficient mechanical stability of the construction. This work tests two hypotheses: (1) Graft compaction is an important determinant of mechanical stability, and (2) Graft compaction depends on compaction effort and graft properties. Methods: Impaction grafting surgery was simulated in laboratory experiments using artificial bones with realistic elastic properties (Sawbones, Malmö, Sweden). Bone stock was restored with compacted morsellised graft, and the joint reconstructed with a cemented implant. The implant was loaded cyclically and its migration relative to bone measured. In a second study, morsellised bone of various particle sizes and bone densities, with or without added ceramic bone substitutes, was compacted into a cylindrical mould by impaction of a plunger by a dropping weight. Plunger displacement was measured continuously. Results: Initial mechanical stability of the prostheses correlated most strongly with degree of graft compaction achieved. Graft compaction to similar strength was achieved with less energy for morsellised bone with larger particles, higher density, or bone mixed with ceramic substitutes. Conclusion: Initial mechanical stability of impaction-grafted joint reconstructions depends largely on degree of graft compaction achieved by the surgeon. Compaction depends partly on the vigour of impaction, and partly on graft quality. Higher bone density, larger particle size and mixing with ceramic particles all help to facilitate graft compaction, giving a stronger compacted mass with less effort

Impaction grafting has been used for both femoral and acetabular defects quite successfully for over 15 years. Sloof, Ling and others have demonstrated consistent remodelling of the morselised allograft in both locations as well as long-term survivorship in a high percentage of difficult revisions. The application of this concept to the knee is somewhat novel, although there have been a few scattered reports, but bone loss in revision knee surgery can also be profound. Like its counterpart in the hip, it relies heavily on meticulous technique for success. Key aspects of the technique: the use of crushed cancellous fresh frozen allograft; tight packing of the graft; containment of the graft with mesh when necessary; and secondary packing with proper instruments to ensure stability of and load bearing on the graft. The need for polished tapered stems remains in question, as RSA techniques in the hip have indicated that motion is less commonly linked with stability. Subsidence, mechanically speaking, will not be tolerated as well at the knee as in the hip and will, in most cases, lead to loosening or gap mismatching with accompanying instability. Patients with greater than 50% loss of cancellous bone stock volume, tibial height at or below the fibular head, and/or distal femoral loss to or beyond the epicondyle(s) are ideal candidates. Augments usually have difficulty restoring the joint line in these massive loss cases and usually add nothing that can potentially serve as a foundation for new implants should yet another revision be necessary in a patient’s lifetime. Impaction grafting at the knee has the potential to augment the bone stock in such cases substantially

Impaction grafting is an excellent option for acetabular revision. It is technique specific and very popular in England and the Netherlands and to some degree in other European centers. The long term published results are excellent. It is, however, technique dependent and the best results are for contained cavitary defects. If the defect is segmental and can be contained by a single mesh and impaction grafting, the results are still quite good. If, however, there is a larger segmental defect of greater than 50% of the acetabulum or a pelvic discontinuity, other options should be considered. Segmental defects of 25–50% can be managed by minor column (shelf) or figure of 7 structural allografts with good long term results. Porous metal augments are now a good option with promising early to mid-term results. Segmental defects of greater than 50% require a structural graft or porous augment usually protected by a cage. If there is an associated pelvic discontinuity then a cup cage is a better solution. An important question is does impaction grafting facilitate rerevision surgery? There is no evidence to support this but some histological studies of impacted allograft would suggest that it may. On the other hand there are papers that show that structural allografts do restore bone stock for further revision surgery. Also the results of impaction grafting are best in the hands of surgeons comfortable with using cement on the acetabular side, and one of the reasons why this technique is not as popular in North America

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs:. (A). Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B). Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C). Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

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

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morsellised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A). Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture, This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B). Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C). Cup-Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup-cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs: (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important; (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage; (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity