Introduction. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (rTSA) is an efficient treatment, to relieve from pain and to increase function. However, scapular notching remains a serious issue and post-operative range of motion (ROM) presents many variations. No study compared implant positioning, different implant combinations, different implant sizes on different types of patient representative to undergo for rTSA, on glenohumeral ROM in every degree of freedom. Material and Methods. From a CT-scan database classified by a senior surgeon, CT-exams were analysed by a custom software Glenosys® (Imascap®, Brest, France). Different glenoid implants types and positioning were combined to different humerus implant types. Range of motion was automatically computed. Patients with an impingement in initialisation position were excluded from the statistical analysis. To validate those measures, a validation bench was printed in 3D to analyse different configurations. Results. 25 patients were included; 50 configurations were realised per patient. The validation bench on 5 configurations retrieved an error of 1,5° ± 0,88°. The impingement rate and ROM were improved using lateralised glenoid implant types, inferior positioning glenoid implant types, 42mm glenospheres, decreased Neck Shaft Angles for humerus implants and humerus inset. Conclusion. Impingement in resting arm at side position and ROM can be maximised with an adequate implant choice. A surgical planning software could assist the surgeon to choose the best configuration for each patient to maximise the post-operative outcome (scapular notching and global range of motion)

Abstract. Background and study aim. The UK National Joint Registry(NJR) has not reported total knee replacement (TKR)survivorship based on design philosophy alone, unlike its international counterparts. We report outcomes of implant survivorship based on design philosophy using data from NJR's 2020 annual report. Materials and methods. All TKR implants with an identifiable design philosophy from NJR data were included. Cumulative revision data for cruciate-retaining(CR), posterior stabilised(PS), mobile-bearing(MB) design philosophies was derived from merged NJR data. Cumulative revision data for individual brands of implants with the medial pivot(MP) philosophy were used to calculate overall survivorship for this design philosophy. The all-cause revision was used as the endpoint and calculated to 15 years follow-up with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results. 1,144,384 TKRs were included. CR is the most popular design philosophy (67.4%), followed by PS (23.1%), MB (6.9%) and least commonly MP (2.6%). MP and CR implants showed the best survivorship (95.7% and 95.6% respectively) at 15 years which is statistically significant at, and beyond, 10 years. Observed survivorship was lower at all time points with the PS and MB implants (94.5% for both designs at 15 years). Conclusions. While all design philosophies considered in this study survive well, CR and MP designs offer statistically superior survivorship at and beyond 10 years. MP design performs better than CR beyond 13 years yet, remain the least popular design philosophy used. Publishing data based on knee arthroplasty design philosophy would help surgeons when making decisions on implant choice

Lumbar fusion surgery is an established procedure for the treatment of several spinal pathologies. Despite numerous techniques and existing devices, common surgical trends in lumbar fusion surgery are scarcely investigated. The purpose of this Canada-based study was to provide a descriptive portrait of current surgeons’ practice and implant preferences in lumbar fusion surgery while comparing findings to similar investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Canadian Spine Society (CSS) members were sampled using an online questionnaire which was based on previous investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Fifteen questions addressed the various aspects of surgeons’ practice: fusion techniques, implant preferences, and bone grafting procedures. Responses were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Of 139 eligible CSS members, 41 spinal surgeons completed the survey (29.5%). The most common fusion approach was via transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with 87.8% performing at least one procedure in the previous year. In keeping with this, 24 surgeons (58.5%) had performed 11 to 50 cases in that time frame. Eighty-six percent had performed no lumbar artificial disc replacements over their last year of practice. There was clear consistency on the relevance of a patient specific management (73.2%) on the preferred fusion approach. The most preferred method was pedicle screw fixation (78%). The use of stand-alone cages was not supported by any respondents. With regards to the cage material, titanium cages were the most used (41.5%). Published clinical outcome data was the most important variable in dictating implant choice (87.8%). Cage thickness was considered the most important aspect of cage geometry and hyperlordotic cages were preferred at the lower lumbar levels. Autograft bone graft was most commonly preferred (61.0%). Amongst the synthetic options, DBX/DBM graft (64.1%) in injectable paste form (47.5%) was preferred. In conclusion, findings from this study are in partial agreement with previous work from the United Kingdom, but highlight the variance of practice within Canada and the need for large-scale clinical studies aimed to set specific guidelines for certain pathologies or patient categories

Aim. We report the results of 60 patients who were assessed using the Oxford Hip Score following surgery for revision of ASL XL and ASR Resurfacing systems at our institution. We included preoperative metal ion levels, surgical approach, revision implant, and post op histology and complications to determine variables for improved outcomes. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive series patients who underwent revision surgery between 2007 – 2015. We collected and analysed data from 60 patients regarding time between surgery, surgical technique including approach and anaesthesia, estimated blood loss (EBL), revision implant, post op complications, histology, and length of post-operative stay. We correlated these findings to the patients reported outcomes measures using the Oxford Hip Score, which were obtained by post. Results. Our data shows a reduction in values for Oxford Hip Scores in at least 24 patients as compared to an improvement in values for 22 patients. 6 patients could not be contacted, 4 patients refused to participate, and 4 patients did not have pre-op Oxford Hip Score values for comparison. Our main findings from 46 patients are summarized in table 2. Conclusion(s). Age, Sex, Ion Level, Surgical Approach, and Implant choice may be useful variables in predicting patient satisfaction following revision surgery. Implications. The major practical implication of this study is that we may be able to predict Outcomes of Revision surgery based on variables mentioned above. This has major implication in suitable patient selection for surgery, and appropriate implant choice

Implant choice was changed from cemented Thompson to Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) for treatment of displaced intra-capsular neck of femur fractures in University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, United Kingdom (a major trauma center), following the NICE guidelines that advised about the use of a proven femoral stem design rather than Austin Moore or Thompson stems for hemiarthroplasties. The aim of our study was to compare the results of Thompson versus ETS hemiarthroplasty in Aintree. We initially compared 100 Thompson hemiarthroplasties that were performed before the start of ETS use, with 100 ETS hemiarthroplasties. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of patients' demographics (age, sex and ASA grade), intra-operative difficulties/complications, post op medical complications, blood transfusion, in-patient stay and dislocations. The operative time was statistically significantly longer in the ETS group (p= .0067). Worryingly, the 30 days mortality in ETS group was more than three times higher in ETS group (5 in Thompson group versus 16 in ETS group. P= .011). To corroborate our above findings we studied 100 more consecutive patients that had ETS hemiarthroplasty. The results of this group showed 30 day mortality of 8 percent. However the operative time was again significantly longer (p= .003) and there was 18 percent conversion to bipolar hemiarthropalsty. Moreover there was statistically significant increased rate of deep infection (7%, p = .03) and blood transfusion (27%, p = .007). This we feel may be due to longer and more surgically demanding operative technique including pressurised cementation in some patients with significant medical comorbidities. Our results raise the question whether ETS hemiarthoplasty implant is a good implant choice for neck of femur fracture patients. Randomised control trials are needed to prove that ETS implant is any better than Thompson hemiarthroplasty implants in this group of patients

The challenges faced by hip surgeons have changed over the last decade. Historically, fixation, polyethylene wear, osteolysis, loosening and failure to osseointegrate dominated the discussions at hip surgery meetings. With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene, wear and osteolysis are currently not significant issues. Improved surgical technique has resulted in a high rate of osseointegration and once fixed, loosening of cementless components is rare. In this session, we will focus on issues that orthopaedic surgeons performing hip surgery routinely face including bearing couples in the young active patient, implant choices in the dysplastic hip and osteoporotic femur, evaluation and management of the unstable hip and differential diagnosis of the painful THR

Introduction. Revision of total knee endoprostheses (TKA) is increasing in number and causes rising healthcare costs. For constrained prostheses, the use of intramedullar femoral stems is standard. However, there is a big variety of available stem types with regard to length, type of fixation (cemented vs. hybrid) and fixation area (diaphyseal vs. metaphyseal). The aim of this biomechanical study was to investigate the primary stability of revision TKA with different stem types and different femoral bone defects, to find out whether smaller or shorter stems may achieve sufficient stability while preserving bone for re-revision. Methods. 30 right human femora were collected, fresh frozen and divided in six groups, matching for age, gender, height, weight and bone density. In group 1–3 a bone defect of AORI type F2a (15mm medial) and in group 4–6 a defect of AORI type F3 (25mm on both sides) was created. In all six groups the same modular femoral surface component (Endo-Model-W, Waldemar Link) was used, combined with different stem types (100/ 160 mm cemented / uncemented / standard/ anatomical with / without cone). Additionally, one trial was set up, omitting the modular stem. The correct fit of the implants was confirmed by fluoroscopy. After embedding, specimens were mechanically loaded 10mm medially and parallel to the mechanical femoral axis with an axial force of 2700N and a torsional moment of 5.6Nm at a flexion angle of 15° with respect to the coupled tibial plateau according to in-vivo gait load for 10,000 cycles (1Hz) in a servohydraulic testing machine (Bionix, MTS). The relative movement between implant, cement and distal femur was recorded using a stereo video system (Aramis3D,gom). An axial pull-out test at 1mm/min was performed after dynamic loading. Results. No clinical or radiological loosening of any configuration was observed. In all cases, relative movements were below 20µm and the differences between groups were very small. There were two cases, the trial without stem and one probe with short cemented stem with poor cementing technique (not included in the group result), which showed greatly increased relative movements. Pull-out test exhibited that forces of short stems with cones and uncemented anatomical cone stems with large defects (groups 4–6) were not significantly different to cemented stems in small defects. Discussion. Despite the high experimental load, even causing bone fracture in two cases, no difference between the investigated stem types concerning primary stability was found, partially probably due to the high inter-individual variations. Possible long-term differences cannot be assessed with in-vitro testing representing direct post-op situation, but the results might partially explain the controversial clinical observations and suggest further investigation on patient specific decisive parameters for implant choice. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

INTRODUCTION. The Dorr Bone Classification, devised in 1993 is commonly used to categorize bone types prior to hip reconstruction. The purpose of the present study is to quantify the Dorr classification system using 4 morphologic parameters – morphologic cortical index (MCI), canal-flare index (CFI), canal-bone ratio (CBR), and canal-calcar ratio (CCR). METHODS. 816 hips were reviewed. Demographic data reviewed includes age, sex, and laterality. Each hip was reviewed by 2 separate evaluators for Dorr classification. The MCI, CCR, CBR, and CFI were calculated for each hip on anteroposterior radiographs (Fig 1). One-way ANOVA statistical analysis was used to examine if there are mean differences for each measurement. IRB approval was obtained before collection of data. RESULTS. The average age of patients was 61 (range 20–96). There were 367 left hips and 449 right hips. The prevalence of Dorr A was 45.8%. The prevalence of Dorr B bone was 38.9% and of Dorr C bone was 15.3%. One-way ANOVA analysis confirmed the mean differences for each measurement. Measurements of the MCI, CCR, CBR, and CFI were statistically significantly different between the three types of bone. The MCI and CFI were significantly higher in Type A than Type B and higher in Type B than Type C. The CBR and CCR were significantly lower in Type A than Type B and lower in Type B than Type C. DISCUSSION. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to attempt to quantify the Dorr Bone classification system using MCI, CCR, CBR, and CFI using a large series of patients. Classification of the proximal femur geometry is important as it may play a role in implant fixation for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Furthermore, this information can be used to guide future implant choices

While the vast majority of total knee replacements performed throughout the world employ a modular metal-backed tibial tray, and not an all-polyethylene tray, this issue remains controversial. Proposed advantages to a metal-backed tray include: a) decreased bending strains, b) reduces compressive stresses in the cement and cancellous bone beneath the baseplate (especially in asymmetric loading), c) distributes load more evenly across the interface. Proposed advantages of an all-polyethylene tray include: a) cost reduction, b) reduced polyethylene thickness with the same amount of bone resection, c) increased tensile stresses at the interface during eccentric loading. The challenge is at present we don't know the >10-year track record of current generation tibial components. This debate centers on the <60-year-old. This is the most difficult patient in total knee arthroplasty with higher revision rates than an older cohort. It makes sense to use an all-polyethylene tibia if the revision rates turn out to be similar and you don't intend to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. It makes sense to do a modular tray if the results are similar, but there is an intention to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. If either one of these implants choices has a lower cumulative revision rate, then that is the implant of choice at present. However, we need to understand that at present we don't know if the results of current generation all-polyethylene tibial components will indeed be equal to metal-backed components. The most recent data from the Australian registry suggests that in fact all-polyethylene tibial components have a higher failure rate than metal-backed components when looking at the entire class of design. This would be expected to be even more significant in the younger patient

The challenges faced by hip surgeons have changed over the last decade. Historically, fixation, polyethylene wear, osteolysis, loosening and failure to osseointegrate dominated the discussions at hip surgery meetings. With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene, wear and osteolysis are currently not significant issues. Improved surgical technique has resulted in a high rate of osseointegration and once fixed, loosening of cementless components is rare. In this section, we will focus on issues that orthopaedic surgeons performing hip surgery routinely face including bearing couples in the young active patient, implant choices in the dysplastic hip and osteoporotic femur, evaluation and management of the unstable hip and differential diagnosis of the painful THR

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

There are a multitude of choices and implant varieties for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). TKA implant systems differ in a number of design characteristics intended to either improve performance through optimizing kinematic function (such as the medial pivot, mobile bearing, gender-specific or high-flexion designs) or by increasing the durability of the TKA by minimizing long-term failure modes, such as wear and osteolysis with highly cross-linked polyethylene. Further adding to the complexity of choice, is the re-emergence of cementless fixation in response to improve longevity in the progressively younger TKA patient population. The patella creates additional decision-making in TKA, as while most surgeons in the US resurface the patella, there are some who routinely do not which is a much more commonly accepted practice outside of the US. Finally, metal hypersensitivity is a controversial, yet unavoidable issue, which forces the consideration of “nickel-free” or ceramic-coated implants. Unfortunately, there is paucity of outcome data to support one implant choice over another, which is problematic in the modern arena of value-based cost reductions in healthcare. Further confounding the issue is the inability of current outcome measures to accurately assess the differences in performance of the various TKA designs. This talk will provide the latest evidence particular to the major TKA component choices as they relate to patient pathology

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 pre-operative 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) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative 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 pre-operative 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 intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of 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

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 pre-operative 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) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative 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 pre-operative 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 intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of 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. Highly porous metal augments designed to reestablish metaphyseal support and function in the manner of a prosthetic structural graft have been introduced or are under development by several manufacturers. Published reports of short term experiences have been encouraging for both the tibial side and for femoral augmentation. It remains to be seen whether these implants will provide the desired longer term durability

Background. To evaluate the causes and modes of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and to identify its prevention and treatment method by analyzing the complications after UKA. Materials and Methods. A total of 1,576 UKAs were performed between January 2002 and December 2014 at a single-institution. Postoperative complications occurred in 89 knees (83 patients, 5.6%), and 86 of them were found in females and 3 in males. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 46 to 81 years) at the time of initial UKA and 66 years (range, 46 to 82 years) at the time of revision surgery. We analyzed the complications after UKA retrospectively andinvestigated the proper methods of treatment (Table 1). Results. A total of 89 complications (5.6%) occurred afterUKA. Regarding the type of complications after UKA, there were bearing dislocation (n=42), component loosening (n=23), 11 cases of femoral component loosening, 8 cases of tibial component loosening, and 4 cases of both femoral and tibial component loosening, periprosthetic fracture (n=6), polyethylene wear/ destruction (n=3), progression of arthritis to the other compartment (n=3), medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury (n=2), impingement (n=2), infection (n=5), ankylosis (n=1), and unexplained pain (n=2) (Table 2). The most common complication after UKA was mobile bearing dislocation in mobile-bearing type and loosening of prosthesis in fixed-bearing type, but polyethylene wear and progression of arthritis were relatively rare. The mean interval from UKA to the occurrence of complications was 4 years and 6 months (range, 0 [during operation] to 12 years). Of those complications following UKA, 58 knees were treated with conversion TKA, 1 with revision UKA, and 21 with simple bearing change. Complications in the remaining knees were treated with arthroscopic management (n=2), open reduction and internal fixation (n=3), closed reduction and internal fixation (n=1), manipulation (n=1), and MCL repair (n=2) (Table 3). Discussion. In this single-center study, we reviewed the causes and types of complications (n=89) that occurred following UKA (n=1,576) and investigated optimal treatment methods. The incidence and type of complications were also compared among patients classified according to gender, medial/lateral UKA, and implant design and type. The strengths of this study include that all the patients were enrolled from the same institution and the sample size (UKA cases and complication cases) was relatively large compared to that in previous publications. The most common complication following UKA was bearing dislocation in the mobile-bearing knees and component loosening in the fixed-bearing knees. The incidence of polyethylene wear and progression of arthritis to the other compartment was relatively low. The results of our study are in some discrepancy with those of studies involving Western patients. This can be attributed to the differences in patient characteristics such as lifestyle and in the type and design of implant used. Conclusion. Thorough understanding of UKA, proper patient selection, appropriate implant choice are essential to reduce complications following UKA and obtain satisfactory outcomes. We suggest that complications following UKA should be treated differently according to the type and cause of complication and conversion TKA can be the most effective treatment when revision operation is determined necessary

The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The literature is full of articles and commentary supporting one method over another. Options include open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Treatment options in an active 65-year-old are exceptionally controversial given the fact that people in this middle-aged group still wished to remain active and athletic in many circumstances. A hemiarthroplasty offers the advantage of a greater range of motion, however, this has a high incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion and this is a very common reason for revision of that hemiarthroplasty for fracture to a reverse shoulder replacement. One recent study showed a 73% incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion in shoulders that had a revised hemiarthroplasty to a reverse shoulder replacement. Progressive glenoid wear and erosion is also a risk after a hemiarthroplasty in the younger patient, especially someone who is young and active. In addition, studies show shorter operative time in hemiarthroplasty. The range of motion is highly dependent on proper tuberosity healing and this is often one of the most challenging aspects of the surgical procedure as well as the healing process. A reverse shoulder replacement in general has less range of motion compared to a hemiarthroplasty with anatomically healed tuberosities, however, the revision rate is lower compared to a hemiarthroplasty. (This is likely related to few were options for revision). The results after a reverse shoulder replacement may not be as dependent on tuberosity healing, however, importantly the tuberosities do need to be repaired and the results are significantly better if there is healing of the greater tuberosity, giving some infraspinatus and/or teres minor function to the shoulder. Complete lack of tuberosity healing forces the shoulder into obligate internal rotation with attempted elevation and this can be functionally disabling. Academic discussion is beginning surrounding the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis in a primary setting as it is believed that the glenosphere and baseplate may have greater longevity than a polyethylene glenoid. Along with this discussion, we will likely see greater application of the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of fracture for younger patients. In general, open reduction internal fixation should still remain the treatment of choice in the setting of a fracture that can be fixed. However, a strong argument can be made that if an arthroplasty is necessary, a reverse shoulder replacement is the implant of choice

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 pre-operative 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) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximizing support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to the adjacent diaphysis. Pre-operative 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 pre-operative 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 intra-operative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of 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

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) Large prosthetic augments (cones); 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites (APC); 8) Custom implants. Maximising support on intact host bone is a fundamental principle to successful reconstruction and frequently requires extending fixation to 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. Reconstruction of bone deficiency following removal of the failed implant is largely dictated by the location and extent of bone loss and the quality of bone that remains. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions the degree of 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

Introduction. Aseptic loosening is the main reason for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure, responsible for more than 25% of the revision procedures, with most of the problems occurring with the tibial component. While early loosening can be attributed to failure of primary fixation, late implant loosening is associated with loss of fixation secondary to bone resorption due to altered physiological load transfer to the tibial bone. Several attempts have been made to investigate these changes in bone load transfer in biomechanical simulations and bone remodeling analyses, which can be useful to provide information on the effect of patient, surgery, or design-related factors. On the other hand, these factors have also been investigated in clinical studies of radiographic changes of bone density following TKA. In this study we made an overview of the knowledge obtained from these clinical studies, which can be used to inform clinical decision making and implant design choices. Methods. A literature search was performed to identify clinical follow-up studies that monitored peri-prosthetic bone changes following TKA. Within these studies, effects of the following parameters on bone density changes were investigated: post-operative time, region of interest, alignment, body weight, systemic osteoporosis, implant design and cementation. Moreover, we investigated the effect of bone density loss on implant survival. Results. A total of 19 studies was included in this overview, with a number of included patients ranging from 12 to 7,760. Most studies used DEXA (n=16), while a few studies performed analyses on calibrated digital radiographs (n=2), or computed tomography (n=1). Postoperative follow-up varied from 9 months to 10 years. Studies consistently report the largest bone density reduction within the first postoperative year. Bone loss is mainly seen in the medial region. This has been attributed to the change in alignment following surgery, during which often the pre-operative varus knee is corrected to a more physiological alignment, resulting in a load shift towards the lateral compartment. Measurements in unoperated contralateral legs were performed in 3 cases, and two studies performed standardized DEXA measurements to provide information on systemic osteoporosis. While on the short term no changes were observed, significant negative correlations have been found between severity of osteoporosis and peri-prosthetic bone density. No clear effects of bodyweight and cementation on bone loss have been identified. Although some studies do find differences between implant types, the variation in the data makes it difficult to draw general conclusions from these findings. Several studies reported no effect of bone loss on implant migration. In another study, a medial collapse was associated with a medial increase in density, suggesting that altered loading and increased stresses are responsible for both bone formation and the overload leading to collapse. Discussion. There are important lessons to be learned from these clinical studies, although generally the large spread in the DEXA data restricts strong conclusions. There is a large variation in used ROI definitions, complicating direct comparisons. Finally, most studies report density changes of well-functioning reconstructions, since only very large studies are able to gather enough failed cases

Aim. To evaluate the costs of performing revision hip and knee surgery at a District General Hospital. Methods. A retrospective review of all revision hip and knee surgery between October 2004 and October 2006 was performed. Information was obtained from the notes and theatre log books. Each case was fully costed. The breakdown costs included implant choice, theatre time, length of stay, allograft, blood products and post-operative physiotherapy/OT. The costs were obtained from the hospital financial department and theatre invoices. Payment to the hospital is based on a specific tariff which in turn is determined by coding each patient episode. We individually coded every case, using the OPCS 4.3 coding system, and applied the appropriate tariff. The tariffs that the financial department had applied to each case were also available. A comparison was made between actual costs incurred, the expected reimbursement (from our study coding) and the actual reimbursement received (from finance department). Results. 167 revision procedures were performed (108 hips and 59 knees). The total incurred cost of revision hip surgery was £930,156 (mean £8,613 per case). The expected total reimbursement according to our coding was £938,325 (mean £8,688). The total reimbursement actually received was £806,836 (mean £7,471). The total incurred cost of revision knee surgery was £493,357 (mean £8,362). The expected total reimbursement according to our coding was £499,042 (mean £8,458). The total reimbursement was £419,157 (mean £7,104). Conclusions. Inadequate coding results in reduced income. If strict coding practices are adhered to then performing revision hip and knee surgery should be financially viable at a district general hospital