Summary. In this study we validate that weight-bearing images are needed for accurate polyethylene liner wear measurement in total knee prostheses by measuring the difference in minimum joint space width between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing RSA views. Introduction. Recent studies show that Model-based Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis is superior to the conventional in vivo measurements of polyethylene liner wear in total knee prostheses. Although it is generally postulated that weight-bearing (standing) views are required to detect liner wear, most RSA images are acquired in non-weight-bearing (supine) view for practical reasons. Therefore, it would be of interest to know if supine views would be sufficient for measuring TKA liner wear, defined as a change in minimum joint space width (mJSW). As a difference in mJSW between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing RSA images has never been validated, the aim of this study is to compare the outcome of in vivo measurements of mJSW in total knee prosthesis when conducted with weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing RSA views. Method. We selected the first 16 patients with a Triathlon total knee prosthesis from a clinical study for which subsequently a weight-bearing eand a non-weight-bearing RSA image pair were acquired at one year follow up. For both images the mJSW and the corresponding contact point locations in terms of mediolateral (ML) and anterioposterior (AP) coordinates were measured. In addition, the ML stability was scored to assess knee laxity. The size of the mJSW difference between non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing views was determined and a regression analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of knee laxity to this difference, while correcting for differences between the contact point locations. Results. On average, the measured mJSW was 0.22 mm larger in the non-weight-bearing views (T-test, p < 0.05). The standard deviation of the difference was 0.22 mm. The regression analysis showed that a difference in the ML position of the contact location was an important covariate (beta = 0.255±0.054, Wald 95% CI). 13 patients had a high ML stability (< 5 deg) and three had a medium stability (5–10 deg). The regression analysis showed that on average patients with medium ML stability had a 0.17 mm larger difference in mJSW than patients with a high ML stability. Conclusion. The study shows that the mJSW is larger in non-weight-bearing views. The differences found are clinically relevant, as wear rates in practice are as small as 0.1 mm per year. Hereby it is validated that weight-bearing RSA images are more capable of detecting the mJSW in total knee prostheses. The size of the difference in mJSW between the views seems to be in relation with the knee laxity

Summary Statement. We analysed impaction bone grafting used together with cemented or uncemented fixation in acetabular revision surgery. The overall risk for re-revision did not differ between the cemented and uncemented group. However, aseptic loosening was more common in the cemented group. Background. Several surgical techniques address bone defects in cup revision surgery. Bone impaction grafting, introduced more than thirty years ago, is a biologically and mechanically appealing method. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of bone impaction grafting when used with uncemented and cemented fixation in cup revision surgery. Uncemented cups resting on more than 50% host bone were used as controls. Patient and Methods. Cup fixation was studied in ninety hips (eighty-two patients), revised due to loosening between 1993 and 1997. There were fifty-three isolated cup and thirty-seven total revisions. Patients were followed for thirteen years using conventional radiography, radiostereometry (RSA), Harris Hip score and a pain questionnaire. Peroperatively the surgeon assessed the acetabular bone bed vitality. In hips where the cup was judged to rest on > 50% vital bone (group I, n=43), an uncemented cup was used. If the cup was resting on ≤ 50% living bone, uncemented (group IIa, n=21,) or cemented (group IIb, n=26) technique was chosen, according to the surgeon's preference. The mean age of patients at index revision was 61±12 years, 56% were females. The most common index diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis (n=45) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=10). Results. At thirteen years, acetabular component failure had necessitated a second revision in 6/7/8 hips in Groups I/IIa/IIb respectively. These re-revisions were performed 1–10 (mean 7.1) years after index revision. Moreover four cup / liner revisions were performed in hips with femoral loosening, not allowing further RSA measurements. These twenty-five hips were followed until re-revision. Deceased patients (n=21) and patients with deteriorating medical condition, not able to attend the follow-up (n=7), were censored in the survival statistics. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason of re-revision. However, in the uncemented groups (I/IIa), four cups were re-revised due to liner wear, osteolysis or instability. In the total study population, and up to two years, the median proximal migration was lowest in Group I followed by Group IIa and Group IIb (p≤0,006). At thirteen years the mean proximal migration was highest in Group IIb 1.29 mm (SD 1.23) followed by Group I 0.30 mm (SD 0.40) and Group IIa 0.22 mm (SD 0.22), p = 0.05. In cases subsequently re-revised because of loosening or with radiographically loose cups at the last follow-up, a higher proximal migration was observed compared to the non-revised and radiographically well-fixed group (up to seven years: p < 0.001; thirteen years: p=0.04). Discussion/Conclusion. We found an increased risk for rerevision in cases with less than 50% host bone-implant contact. These cups showed high early proximal migration, measured by RSA, indicating poor initial fixation. Rate of re-revision due to any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented cups. The cemented group (IIb) had a higher risk of being re-revised due to aseptic loosening. Poor bone stock, use of small bone chips, inferior impaction technique, and no or restricted contact with living bone are probable reasons for failures when extensive bone grafting is needed

We used a biodegradable mesh to convert an acetabular defect into a contained defect in six patients at total hip replacement. Their mean age was 61 years (46 to 69). The mean follow-up was 32 months (19 to 50). Before clinical use, the strength retention and hydrolytic in vitro degradation properties of the implants were studied in the laboratory over a two-year period. A successful clinical outcome was determined by the radiological findings and the Harris hip score.

All the patients had a satisfactory outcome and no mechanical failures or other complications were observed. No protrusion of any of the impacted grafts was observed beyond the mesh. According to our preliminary laboratory and clinical results the biodegradable mesh is suitable for augmenting uncontained acetabular defects in which the primary stability of the implanted acetabular component is provided by the host bone. In the case of defects of the acetabular floor this new application provides a safe method of preventing graft material from protruding excessively into the pelvis and the mesh seems to tolerate bone-impaction grafting in selected patients with primary and revision total hip replacement.