The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the geometry of the proximal femur and the incidence of intra-operative fracture during uncemented total hip arthroplasty (THA). We studied the pre-operative CT scans of 100 patients undergoing THA with an uncemented femoral component. We measured the anteroposterior and mediolateral dimensions at the level of division of the femoral neck to calculate the aspect ratio of the femur. Wide variations in the shape of the femur were observed, from round, to very narrow elliptic. The femurs of women were narrower than those of men (p < 0.0001) and small femurs were also narrower than large ones. Patients with an intra-operative fracture of the calcar had smaller and narrower femurs than those without a fracture (p < 0.05) and the implanted Corail stems were smaller in those with a fracture (mean size 9 vs 12, p < 0.0001). The variability of the shape of the femoral neck at the level of division contributes to the understanding of the causation of intra-operative fractures in uncemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:741–8

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the risk factors, prevention strategies, classification, and treatment of intra-operative femur fractures sustained during primary and revision total hip arthroplasty.

Introduction: The JRI Furlong HAC LOL hemiarthroplasty stem has shown increased periprosthetic fracture rates compared to previous literature(15.2% vs 7.4%). This study will seek to identify a measurable radiographic index, the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index (MDI) score to determine whether intra-operative fracture in osteoporotic bone can be predicted to influence the type of prosthesis used (cemented or uncemented). Methodology: Over 5 years prospectively, a cohort of 560 consecutive patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty (cemented and uncemented) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes and radiographic analysis was performed. The Vancouver Classification was used to classify peri-prosthetic fracture. The MDI score was calculated using radiographs from the uncemented group. As a control (gold standard), Yeung et al’s CBR score was also calculated. From this, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was formulated for both scores and area under the curve (AUC) compared. Intra and inter-observer correlations were determined. Cost analysis was also worked out for adverse outcomes. Results: 407 uncemented and 153 cemented stems were implanted. 62 periprosthetic fractures occurred in the uncemented group (15.2%), 9 occurred in the cemented group (5.9%), p< 0.001. The revision rate for sustaining a periprosthetic fracture (uncemented group) was 17.7%, p< 0.001. MDI’s AUC was 0.985 compared to CBR’s 0.948, p< 0.001. The MDI score cut-off to predict fracture was 21, sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 99.8%, positive predictive value 90.5% and negative predictive value 98%. ANCOVA analysis ruled out any other confounding factors as being significant. The intra and inter-observer Pearson correlation scores were r=0.99, p< 0.001. The total extra cost due to the intra-operative fractures was ú40,140. Discussion: The MDI score has been shown to be a potentially useful, cost effective way of preventing this serious complication from occurring. We recommend that any femur scoring 21 or less on the MDI score be considered for cemented hemiarthroplasty. Level of evidence: Level 2 Diagnostic Study: Investigating a diagnostic test against gold standard

The Covid-19 pandemic restricted access to elective arthroplasty theatres. Consequently, there was a staggering rise in waiting times for patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA). Concomitantly, rapidly destructive osteoarthritis (RDOA) incidence also increased. Two cohorts of patients were reviewed: patients undergoing primary THA, pre-pandemic (December 2017-December 2018) and patients with RDOA (ascertained by dual consultant review of pre-operative radiographs) undergoing THA after the pandemic started (March 2020 – March 2022). There were 236 primary THA cases in the pre-pandemic cohort. Out of the 632 primary THA cases post-pandemic, 186 cases (29%) had RDOA. Within this RDOA cohort, the pre-operative mean OHS, EQ5D3L and EQVAS (12.7, 10.5 and 57.6 respectively) were all poorer than in the pre-pandemic population (18.3, 9.4 and 66.7 respectively) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the RDOA and pre-pandemic cohort in Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) at 12 months, perhaps due to their ceiling effect. Within the RDOA cohort, 7 cases required acetabular augments, 1 of which also required femoral shortening. The rate of intra-operative fracture, dislocation, infection, return to theatre, and revision were 2.2%, 2.7%, 4.3%, 3.8% and 2.2% respectively, greater than those reported in the literature. No fractures nor dislocations occurred in robot assisted arthroplasties. With ever increasing waiting lists, RDOA prevalence will continue to rise. Increased surgical challenges and potential use of additional implants generated by its presence excludes these patients from waiting list initiative pathways, potentiating the complexity of the operative procedure. Going forwards, the economic burden and training implications must be considered

Intraoperative fractures although rare are one of the complications known to occur while performing a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, due to lower incidence rates there is currently a gap in this area of literature that systematically reviews this important issue of complications associated with THA. Method: We looked into Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the archives of meetings of orthopaedic associations and the bibliographies of included articles and asked experts to identify prospective studies, published in any language that evaluated intra-operative fractures occurring during total hip arthroplasty from the year 1950-2020. The screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two researchers and if there was any discrepancy, a third reviewer was involved. Fourteen studies were identified. The reported range of occurrence of fracture while performing hip replacement surgery was found to be 0.4-7.6%. Major risk factors identified were surgical approaches, Elderly age, less Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index score, change in resistance while insertion of the femur implants, inexperienced surgeons, uncemented femoral components, use of monoblock elliptical components, implantation of the acetabular components, patients with ankylosing spondylitis, female gender, uncemented stems in patients with abnormal proximal femoral anatomy and with cortices, different stem designs, heterogeneous fracture patterns and toothed design. Intraoperative fractures during THA were managed with cerclage wire, femoral revision, intramedullary nail and cerclage wires, use of internal fixation plates and screws for management of intra operative femur and acetabular fractures. The main reason for intraoperative fracture was found to be usage of cementless implants but planning and timely recognition of risk factors and evaluating them is important in management of intraoperative fractures. Adequate surgical site exposure is critical especially during dislocation of hip, reaming of acetabulum, impaction of implant and preparing the femoral canal for stem insertion. Eccentric and increased reaming of acetabulum to accommodate a larger cup is to be avoided, especially in females and elderly patients as the acetabulum is thinner. However, this area requires more research in order to obtain more evidence on effectiveness, safety and management of intraoperative fractures during THA

Aim and Methods. The goals of this study were to define the risk factors, nature, chronology, and treatment strategies adopted for periprosthetic femoral fractures in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs). . Results. There were 564 intra-operative fractures (1.7%); 529 during uncemented stem placement (3.0%) and 35 during cemented stem placement (0.23%). Intra-operative fractures were more common in females and patients over 65 years (p < 0.001). The majority occurred during placement of the femoral component (60%), and involved the calcar (69%). There were 557 post-operative fractures (20-year probability: 3.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 3.9); 335 fractures after placement of an uncemented stem (20-year probability: 7.7%; 95% CI 6.2 to 9.1) and 222 after placement of a cemented stem (20-year probability: 2.1%; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.5). The probability of a post-operative fracture within 30 days after an uncemented stem was ten times higher than a cemented stem. The most common post-operative fracture type was a Vancouver A. G . (32%; n = 135), with 67% occurring after a fall. In all, 36% (n = 152) were treated with revision arthroplasty. . Conclusion. In summary, intra-operative fractures occur 14 times more often with uncemented stems. Female patients over 65 years of age are at highest risk. Post-operative fractures are also most common with uncemented stems, but are independent of age or gender. Cumulative risk of post-operative periprosthetic femur fracture was 3.5% at 20 years. Take home message: Intra-operative fractures occur 14 times more often with uncemented stems, particularly with female patients over 65 years of age, while post-operative fracture risk is independent of age or gender, but still increased with uncemented stems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:461–7

Aims. The goals of this study were to define the risk factors, characteristics, and chronology of fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). . Patients and Methods. From our hospital’s prospectively collected database we identified all patients who had undergone a revision THA between 1969 and 2011 which involved the femoral stem. The patients’ medical records and radiographs were examined and the relevant data extracted. Post-operative periprosthetic fractures were classified using the Vancouver system. A total of 5417 revision THAs were identified. Results. There were 668 intra-operative fractures, giving an incidence of 12%. Fractures were three times more common with uncemented stems (19%) than with cemented stems (6%) (p <  0.001). The incidence of intra-operative femoral fracture varied by uncemented stem type: fully-coated (20%); proximally-coated (19%); modular fluted tapered (16%) (p < 0.05). Most fractures occurred during the insertion of the femoral component (35%). One-third involved the diaphysis and 26% were of the calcar: 69% were undisplaced. There were 281 post-operative fractures of the femur (20-year probability = 11%). There was no difference in risk for cemented and uncemented stems. Post-operative fractures were more common in men < 70 years (p = 0.02). Periprosthetic fractures occurred earlier after uncemented revision of the femoral component, but later after a cemented revision. The most common fracture type was a Vancouver B. 1. (31%). Of all post-operative fractures, 24% underwent open reduction and internal fixation and 15% revision arthroplasty. Conclusion. In revision THA, intra-operative fractures occurred three times more often with an uncemented stem. Many were undisplaced diaphyseal fractures treated with cerclage fixation. . While the risk of post-operative fracture is similar between uncemented and cemented components, they occur at notably different times depending on the type of stem fixation. . Take home message: In revision THA, intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures occur three times more often with uncemented stems. Many are non-displaced diaphyseal fractures treated with cerclage fixation. While postoperative fracture risks are equivalent between uncemented and cemented components, they occur at notably different time periods based on stem fixation type. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:468–74

A concern with diaphyseal-fitting cementless stems in revision total hip arthroplasty is intra-operative fractures. Two hundred and eleven patients consecutively underwent revision hip arthroplasty using Solution stems (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). Intra-operative fractures or perforations occurred in sixty-four patients (30% prevalence), with diaphyseal splits in thirty-nine patients (18% prevalence). Risk factors were pre-operative osteolysis, cortex to canal ratio, under-reaming the cortex and large diameter stems. The majority of diaphyseal linear cracks occurred at the distal end of extended trochanteric osteotomies during stem insertion. Intra-operative fracture is associated with an average two days longer length of stay (p< 0.05). The purpose of this study was to determine the identification of the risk factors and outcomes of intra-operative fractures using a diaphyseal fitting revision stem. There is an association of intra-operative fracture associated using a diaphyseal-fitting stem in revision total hip arthroplasty with a longer length of stay in hospital. Identifying preoperative risk factors will allow avoidance of such fractures and prolonged hospital stay. Intra-operative fractures or perforations occurred in sixty-four patients (30% prevalence) and thirty-nine patients (18% prevalence) sustained diaphyseal splits. Risk factors associated with intra-operative fracture were pre-operative osteolysis, a low cortex to canal ratio, under-reaming the cortex and the use of a large diameter stem. Surgical approach was not directly related to fracture occurrence but the majority of diaphyseal undisplaced linear cracks occurred at the distal end of extended trochanteric osteotomies during stem insertion. Cortical perforation occurred most often with cement removal. Duration of stay was on average two days longer (p< 0.05) for patients with an intraoperative fracture. Two hundred and eleven patients who had undergone revision hip arthroplasty using the Solution stem (DePuy, Warsaw, IN) between December 1998 and March 2002 were identified. Patients who sustained an intra-operative fracture were compared to controls patients who underwent hip revision at the same time frame but with no fracture. Multiple factors were analyzed to see which were risk factors for intra-operative fractures. There is a surprisingly high incidence of intra-operative fracture associated with using a diaphyseal-fitting stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. This was associated with a longer length of stay

Introduction. We have previously published limb lengthening using external fixation in pathological bone diseases. We would like to report a case series of femoral lengthening using the PRECICE system in a similar pathological group especially looking at it's feasibility and complications. Materials and Methods. This is a case series of four patients, two patients with osteogenesis imperfecta and two with Ollier's disease, who underwent femoral lengthening via distraction osteogenesis using the PRECICE intramedullary nail system. It was a retrospective study from a prospective database from clinical records and radiographs. Results. The mean age at the time of surgery was 15.5 years, the mean preoperative leg length discrepancy was 30mm, and the mean distraction distance achieved was 28.75mm. Since these patients were of shorter heigh, limb lengthening was considered. All 4 patients had successful insertion of the nail. The outcomes noted from the 4 patients are collated, with several complications occurring including delayed femoral union, fixed flexion deformity of the hip, persisting pain and quadriceps weakness. Those with Ollier's disease underwent an increased rate of distraction to prevent premature healing. The implications of long-term bisphosphonate therapy in OI are discussed with regards to the risk of delayed femoral union and intra-operative fracture. Conclusions. Intramedullary femoral lengthening in pathological bone disease is possible, but the surgeon needs to give attention to certain details. The regenerate formation is based on the background pathology irrespective of the hardware used. There is much more compliance with the nail technique

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned, one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction, more recently, at our institution, we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with a monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with a endofemoral approach. In this approach the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Intra-operative fractures of the femur are on the rise mainly due to the increased use of cementless implants and the desire to get a tight press fit. The prevalence has been reported to be between 1–5% in cementless THAs. The key to preventing these fractures is to identify patients at high risk and careful surgical technique. Surgical risk factors include the use of cementless devices, revision hip surgery, the use of flat tapered wedges and MIS surgery. Patient factors that increased risk include increasing age, female gender, osteopenia and rheumatoid arthritis. These risk factors tend to be additive and certainly when more than one is present extra caution needs to be taken. Surgical technique is critical to avoid these intra-operative fractures. Fractures can occur during exposure and dislocation, during implant removal (in revision THA), during canal preparation and most commonly during stem insertion. In both primary, and especially in revision, THA be wary of the stiff hip in association with osteopenia or osteolysis. These patients require a very gentle dislocation. If this cannot be achieved, then alteration of the standard approach and dislocation may be needed. Examples of these include protrusion with an osteopenic femur and revision THA with a very stiff hip with lysis in the femur. Lastly, in cases with retained hardware, dislocate prior to removing plates and screws. After dislocation, the next challenge is gentle preparation of the femoral canal. A reasonable exposure is required to access the femoral canal safely. MIS procedures do not offer good access to femoral canal and this probably results in increased risk of fracture during broaching or implant insertion. When broaching, stop when broach will not advance further. When inserting a tapered wedge stem, be worried if stem goes further in than broach. In revision surgery, when taking the stem out from above, make sure the area of the greater trochanter does not overhang the canal. A high speed burr can clear the shoulder for easier access for removal. In revision THA with an ETO, place a cerclage wire prior to reaming and retighten prior to stem insertion. Even with careful surgical technique intra-operative femoral fractures will still occur. When inserting the stem, a sudden change in resistance is highly suggestive of fracture. Wide exposure of the entire proximal femur is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. The distal extent of the fracture must be seen. Only on occasion is an intra-operative radiograph needed. Management is directed to ensuring component stability and good fracture fixation. In primary total hip arthroplasty, calcar fractures are by far the most common. If using proximal fixation and you are certain the stem is stable, then all that is needed is cerclage wiring. As already mentioned, you must follow the fracture line distally so you are aware of how far down it goes. Often what appears to be a calcar split actually propagates distal to the lesser trochanter. In these cases, one would probably go for distal fixation plus wiring. In conclusion, intra-operative femoral fractures are on the rise. Prevention is the key

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent function. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures requires careful pre-operative planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. The key issues here are around identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, understanding the possible risks and avoiding them and using appropriate technique. There are a number of recognized risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures. The prevalence of intra-operative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia/osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intra-operative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, as seen in secondary degenerative joint disease following developmental dysplasia of the hip may also increase the risk of intra-operative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intra-operative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for post-operative femoral fractures include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are increasingly recognized. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. Both over- and under-reaming are significant risk factors for acetabular fractures during total hip replacement. It is imperative to deal with the osteopenic patient gently and appropriately, being aware of the rim on the acetabular side and having the capacity for screw fixation where needed, having an understanding of where you wish to place your components and creating the appropriate runways for them, thinking about the stability of an implant as it is inserted and understanding that an implant that is less stable than expected probably is associated with either a size mismatch, a fracture or an implant that will not sit properly probably requires more or a different direction of reaming rather than harder blows with a hammer. A typical example where extra care is required is the scenario of a fractured neck of femur that requires total hip arthroplasty. The virgin native acetabulum in a patient likely to have some bony deficiency may be more difficult to deal with as it has a higher fracture risk. Pre-operative templating helps to identify the correct entry point for preparation of the lateral runway for linear insertion of a femoral stem. If resistance is met during insertion, the situation should be re-appraised to ensure that the direction and level of the rasp and prosthesis are the same. This reduces the risk of varus/valgus positioning which increases the risk of intra- and post-operative fractures. It is also important to avoid a change of version during insertion of the prosthesis as this can lead to high stresses

Introduction. The achieved anteversion of uncemented stems is to a large extent limited by the internal anatomy of the bone. A better understanding of this has recently become an unmet need because of the increased use of uncemented stems. We aimed to assess plan compliance in six degrees of freedom to evaluate the accuracy of PSI and guides for stem positioning in primary THAs. Materials and Methods. We prospectively collected 3D plans generated from preoperative CTs of 30 consecutive THAs (17 left and 13 right hips), in 29 patients with OA, consisting of 16 males and 13 females (median age 68 years, range 46–83 years). A single CT-based planning system and cementless type of implant were used. Post operatively, all patients had a CT scan which was reconstructed using state-of-the-art software solution: the plan and CT reconstruction models were. Outcome measures: 1) discrepancy between planned and achieved stem orientation angles Fig.2&3; 2) clinical outcome. Results. 1) The mean (±SD) discrepancy was low for: Varus-valgus −1.1 ± 1.4 deg (IQR −2.2 – 0.3 deg); Anterior-posterior 0.1 ± 1.6 deg (IQR −0.7 – 1.3 deg). The discrepancy was higher for femoral version −1.4 ± 8.2 deg (IQR −8.3 – 7.2 deg). 3D-CT planning correctly predicted sizes in 93% of the femoral components. 2) There was no intra-operative fracture, no case showed evidence of early periprosthetic osseous injury. Discussion. Surgeons and engineers should be cautious with their expectation of achieving the planned femoral stem version of an uncemented femoral stem from the pre-operative 3D-CT plan. Conclusion. This is the first study to 3D-mensionally evaluate 3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation and guides for achieved femoral stem component orientation vis-à-vis to the plan. The tools allow accurate implant orientation, however there is still potential for improvement. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Introduction: The JRI Furlong HAC LOL hemiarthroplasty stem has shown increased periprosthetic fracture rates compared to previous literature (15.2% vs 7.4%) [1,2,3]. This study seeks to identify a measurable radiographic index, the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index (MDI) score to determine whether intra-operative fracture in osteoporotic bone can be predicted to influence the type of prosthesis used (cemented or uncemented). Methodology: A 5 year prospective cohort of 560 consecutive patients underwent hemiarthroplasty (cemented or uncemented). A nested case-control study to determine risk factors affecting intra-operative fracture was carried out. Clinical outcomes and radiographic analysis was performed. The Vancouver Classification was used to classify periprosthetic fracture. The MDI score was calculated using radiographs, as a control (gold standard), Yeung’s CBR score was calculated [4]. See Figure 1. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was formulated for both and area under the curve (AUC) compared. Intra and inter-observer correlations were determined. Cost analysis was also worked out. Results: 407 uncemented and 153 cemented stems were implanted. The use of uncemented implants was the main risk factor for intra-operative periprosthetic fracture. 62 periprosthetic fractures occurred in the uncemented group (15.2%), 9 in the cemented group (5.9%), p< 0.001. The revision rate for sustaining a periprosthetic fracture (uncemented group) was 17.7%, p< 0.001 and 90 day mortality 19.7%, p< 0.03. MDI’s AUC was 0.985 compared to CBR’s 0.948, p< 0.001. See Figure 2. The MDI score cut-off to predict fracture was 21, sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 99.8%, PPV 90.5%, NPV 98%. ANCOVA ruled out any other confounding factors as being significant. The intra and inter-observer Pearson correlation scores were r=0.99, p< 0.001. The total extra cost due to the intra-operative fractures was £93,780. Discussion: The MDI score is a useful, cost effective way of preventing this serious complication from occurring. We recommend that any femur scoring 21 or less on the MDI score be considered for cemented hemiarthroplasty. Level of evidence: Level 2 Diagnostic Study: Development of diagnostic criteria on basis of consecutive patients (with universally applied reference “gold” standard)

Intra-operative fractures of the femur are on the rise mainly due to the increased use of cementless implants and the desire to get a tight pressfit. The prevalence has been reported to be between 1–5% in cementless total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The key to preventing these fractures is to identify patients at high risk and careful surgical technique. Surgical risk factors include the use of cementless devices, revision hip surgery, the use of flat tapered wedges and MIS surgery. Patient factors that increased risk include increasing age, female gender, osteopenia and rheumatoid arthritis. These risk factors tend to be additive and certainly when more than one is present extra caution needs to be taken. Surgical technique is critical to avoid these intra-operative fractures. Fractures can occur during exposure and dislocation, during implant removal (in revision THA), during canal preparation and most commonly during stem insertion. In both primary and especially in revision THA, be wary of the stiff hip in association with osteopenia or osteolysis. These patients require a very gentle dislocation. If this cannot be achieved, then alteration of the standard approach and dislocation may be needed. Examples of these include protrusion with an osteopenic femur and revision THA with a very stiff hip with lysis in the femur. Lastly, in cases with retained hardware, dislocate prior to removing plates and screws. After dislocation, the next challenge is gentle preparation of the femoral canal. A reasonable exposure is required to access the femoral canal safely. MIS procedures do not offer as good access to femoral canal and this probably results in increased risk of fracture during broaching or implant insertion. When broaching, stop when broach will not advance further. When inserting a tapered wedge stem, be worried if stem goes further in than broach. In revision surgery when taking the stem out from above, make sure the greater trochanter does not overhang the canal. A high speed burr can clear the shoulder for easier access for removal. In revision THA with an ETO place a cerclage wire prior to reaming and retighten prior to stem insertion. Even with careful surgical technique intra-operative femoral fractures will still occur. When inserting the stem a sudden change in resistance is highly suggestive of fracture. Wide exposure of the entire proximal femur is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. The distal extent of the fracture must be seen. Only on occasion is an intra-operative radiograph needed. Management is directed to ensuring component stability and good fracture fixation. In primary total hip arthroplasty calcar fractures are by far the most common. If using proximal fixation and you are certain the stem is stable, then all that is needed is cerclage wiring. As already mentioned, you must follow the fracture line distally so you are aware of how far down it goes. Often what appears to be a calcar split actually propagates distal to the lesser trochanter. In these cases, one would probably go for distal fixation plus wiring. In conclusion intra-operative femoral fractures are on the rise. Prevention is the key. If a fracture, exposure is the key to deciding on a treatment plan

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In two studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a matched cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently, at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done through an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this system more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution, we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Purpose: Currently, there is little information available on the management and outcome of intra-operative periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report on the incidence, management, and outcome of intra-operative periprosthetic humeral fractures. Method: Between 1980 and 2002, forty-six intra-operative periprosthetic humeral fractures occurred during shoulder arthroplasty at our institution. Thirty-six fractures occurred during primary total shoulder arthroplasty, five during primary hemiarthroplasty and four during revision shoulder arthroplasty. Twenty-one fractures involved the greater tuberosity, 16 the humeral shaft, 6 were metaphyseal and 2 fractures involved the greater tuberosity and extended to the humeral shaft. All patients were followed for a minimum of two years (mean, 7.5 years). At final follow-up, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and ASES scores were calculated and preoperative, postoperative, and most recent radiographs were examined for fracture healing and implant integrity. Results: The incidence of intra-operative humerus fractures at our institution was 1.5%. All fractures healed at mean of 13 weeks (range, 6 to 56 weeks). At a mean final follow-up of 90 months (range, 25 to 194 months), the mean forward elevation was 108° and the mean external rotation was 39°. The mean SST was 6 and the mean ASES score was 61. Four patients underwent revision shoulder surgery, two for shoulder instability, one for a massive rotator cuff tear, and one for another periprosthetic humerus fracture that occurred after a fall. Complications included transient nerve injuries in six patients and four fractures displaced postoperatively which were then managed nonoperatively to healing. Conclusion: The data from this study suggest that although intra-operative fractures have a high rate of healing, there was a significant rate of associated complications including transient nerve injuries and fracture displacement. Patients with intra-operative fractures also appear to have less forward elevation at final follow-up when compared to patients who have not sustained an intra-operative humeral fracture

Introduction/Aim. The NAVIO robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) application received FDA clearance in May 2017. This semi-active robotic technique aims to improve the accuracy and precision of total knee arthroplasty. The addition of robotic-assisted technology, however, also introduces another potential source of surgery-related complications. This study evaluates the safety profile of NAVIO RA-TKA. Materials and Methods. Beginning in May 2017, the first 250 patients undergoing NAVIO RA-TKA were included in this study. All intra-operative complications were recorded, including: bleeding; neuro-vascular injury; peri-articular soft tissue injury; extensor mechanism complications; and intra-operative fracture. During the first 90 days following surgery, patients were monitored for any post-operative complications, including: superficial and deep surgical site infection; pin-tract infection; pin site fractures; peri-prosthetic fractures; axial or sagittal joint instability; axial mal-alignment; patello-femoral instability; DVT/PE; re-operation or re-admission due to surgical-related complications. Surgical technique and multi-modality pain management protocol was consistent for all patients in the study. A combined anesthetic technique was employed for all cases, including: low-dose spinal, adductor canal block and general anesthetic. Patients were mobilized per our institution's rapid recovery protocol. Results. No patients were lost to follow-up. During the study period, no intra-operative complications were recorded. Specifically, no complications related to the introduction of the high-speed burr associated with the NAVIO RA-TKA were noted. Within the 90-day follow-up period, there was one case of deep infection. One patient sustained a fall resulting in a peri-prosthetic femoral fracture, that occurred remote from the femoral pin tracts. No cases of axial or sagittal joint instability, axial mal-alignment, patello-femoral instability, pin site infections or fractures; or DVT/PE were identified. Four patients underwent manipulation under anesthesia. No other patients required a re-operation or re-admission due to surgical-related complications. Discussion/Conclusions. The initial experience with the NAVIO robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty has demonstrated excellent safety profile. Relative to known risks associated with total knee arthroplasty, no increased risk of peri-operative complications, re-operation or re-admission for surgical related complications was identified with the introduction of the NAVIO RA-TKA

Removal of a well-fixed humeral component during revision shoulder arthroplasty presents a challenging problem. If the humeral component cannot be extracted simply from above, an alternate approach must be taken that may include compromising bone architecture to remove the implant. Two potential solutions to this problem that allow removal of the well-fixed prosthesis are making a humeral window or creating a longitudinal split in the humerus. A retrospective review was performed at the Mayo Clinic to determine the complications associated with performing humeral windows and longitudinal splits during the course of revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study included 427 patients from 1994–2010 at Mayo Clinic undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. From this cohort, those who required a humeral window or a longitudinal split to assist removal of a well-fixed humeral component were identified. Twenty-seven patients had a humeral window produced to remove a well-fixed humeral component. Six intra-operative fractures were reported from this group: 5 were in the greater tuberosity and 1 was in the distal humeral shaft. At the latest radiographic follow-up, 24 of 27 windows healed, 2 patients had limited inconclusive radiographic follow-up (1 and 2 months), and 1 did not have follow-up at our institution. Twenty-four patients underwent longitudinal osteotomy to extract a well-fixed humeral component. From this group, 1 had intra-operative fracture in the greater tuberosity. At most recent radiographic follow-up, 22 of 24 longitudinal splits healed, 1 had short follow-up (1 ½ months) with demonstrated signs of healing, and 1 did not have follow-up at our institution. In both groups, there were no cases of window malunion and no components have developed clinical loosening. Data from this study suggests humeral windows and longitudinal splits can assist with controlled removal of well-fixed humeral components with a high rate of union and a low rate of intra-operative and post-operative sequelae