Introduction: High energy tibial pilon fractures are usually associated with a significant bone loss in the metaphyseal area of the tibia. This study evaluates three different treatment options for the management of the metaphyseal bone loss. Materials and Methods: Betwwen 1996 and 2007, 85 high energy pilon fractures- Ovadia Beals type IV: 39 and V: 46- were treated and reviewed in our institution. Twenty four fractures were open, and fifty one closed fractures had soft tissue lesion grade1 or 2 according to Tscherne classification. To restore the bone continuity in tibia metaphyseal area bone graft substitutes were used in 53 fractures, acute shortening and proximal lengthening in 18 fractures and bone transport in 14 fractures. Evaluation was carried out according to the Ovadia-Beals evaluation system. Results: The mean average follow up was 6 years. Thirty seven fractures (70%) treated with bone graft substitutes achieved an excellent or good result. Eleven fractures (61%) treated with proximal tibia lengthening achieved an excellent or good result, whereas only eight fractures (57%) treated with bone transport achieved an excellent or good. Bone infection was recorded in 6 fractures, all in the group of the patients treated with bone graft substitutes. Conclusion: The management of the metaphyseal bone loss in the high energy tibial pilon fractures is a basic priority to achieve a satisfactory result. Hybrid external fixation with the use of bone graft substitutes seems to be a more suitable technique to these devastating injuries. However bone infection remains a major concern for these devastating injuries

Aims

The reasons for failure of a hemirthroplasty (HA) when used to treat a proximal humeral fracture include displaced or necrotic tuberosities, insufficient metaphyseal bone-stock, and rotator cuff tears. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is often the only remaining form of treatment in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome after conversions from a failed HA to rTSA.

Aims. Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone. Methods. A metaphyseal cone was combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and cemented stems for 35 revision TKAs. There were two patients with follow-up of less than two years who were excluded, leaving 33 procedures in 32 patients in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 67 years (32 to 87); 20 (60%) were male. Patients had undergone a mean of four (1 to 13) previous knee arthroplasty procedures. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (80%) and two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection (PJI; 20%). The mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11). Results. Survival free from revision of the cone/impaction grafting construct due to aseptic loosening was 100% at five years. Survival free from any revision of the construct and free from any reoperation were 92% and 73% at five years, respectively. A total of six patients (six TKAs, 17%) required a further revision, four for infection or wound issues, and two for periprosthetic fracture. Radiologically, one unrevised TKA had evidence of loosening which was asymptomatic. In all unrevised TKAs the impacted diaphyseal bone graft appeared to be incorporated radiologically. Conclusion. When presented with a sclerotic diaphysis and substantial metaphyseal bone loss, this technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone provided near universal success in relation to implant fixation. Moreover, radiographs revealed incorporation of the bone graft and biological fixation of the cone. While long-term follow-up will be important, this technique provides an excellent option for the management of complex revision TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):116–122

Stems provide short- and long-term stability to the femoral and tibial components. Poorer epiphyseal and metaphyseal bone quality will require sharing or offloading the femoral and tibial component interfaces with a stem. One needs to use stem technique most appropriate for each individual case because of variable anatomy and bone loss situations. The conflict with trying to obtain stability via the stem is that most stems are cylindrical but femoral and tibial metaphyseal/diaphyseal areas are conical in shape. Viable stem options include fully cemented short and long stems, uncemented long stems, offset uncemented stems, and a hybrid application of a cemented proximal end of longer uncemented diaphyseal engaging stems. Stems are not without their risk. The more the load is transferred to the cortex, the greater the risk of proximal interface stress shielding. A long uncemented stem has similar stress shielding as a short cemented stem. Long diaphyseal engaging stems that are cemented or uncemented have the potential to have end of stem pain, especially if more diaphyseal reaming is done to obtain greater cortical contact. A conical shaped long stem can provide more stability than a long cylindrical stem and avoid diaphyseal reaming. Use of long stems may create difficulty in placement of the tibial and femoral components in an optimal position. If the femoral or tibial components do not allow an offset stem insertion, using a long offset stem or short cemented stem is preferred. The amount of metaphyseal bone loss will drive the choice of stem used. Short cemented stems will not have good stability in poor metaphyseal bone without getting the cement out to the cortex. Long cemented stems provide satisfactory survivorship, however, most surgeons avoid cementing long stems due to the difficulty of removal, if a subsequent revision is required. If the metaphyseal bone is excellent, use of a short cemented stem or long uncemented stem can be expected to have good results. Long fully uncemented stems must have independent stability to be effective, or should be proximally cemented as a hybrid technique. Cases with AOI type IIb and III tibial and femoral defects are best managed with use of metaphyseal cones with short cemented stems or long hybrid straight or offset stems. Some studies also suggest that if the cone is very stable, no stem may be required. My preference is to use a short cemented stem or hybrid conical stem in patients with good metaphyseal bone. If significant metaphyseal bone loss is present, I will use a porous cone with either a short cemented stem, hybrid cylindrical or offset stem depending on the primary stability of the cone and whether the femoral or tibial component can be placed in an optimal position in patients with good metaphyseal bone

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21

Introduction. This study was undertaken to evaluate the early results of a new implant system - the metaphyseal sleeve - in revision total knee replacement. The femoral and tibial metaphyseal sleeves are a modular option designed to deal with metaphyseal bone loss and achieve cementless fixation over a relatively wide area in the metaphysis. Methods. Over three years, femoral and/or tibial metaphyseal sleeves were implanted in 104 knees in 103 patients (54 male and 49 female). The clinical notes and radiographs of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty one patients had revision for infection, 42 for aseptic loosening, and 31 for instability, pain or stiffness. Eighty nine knees were revised as a single stage and 15 were done as two stage procedure. Minimum follow up is 12 months (average 18.5 months). Results. At the time of final follow up the sleeves showed good osseointegration in 102 knees with no evidence of loosening or subsidence. In two knees, a progressive radiolucency was noted around the metaphyseal sleeve 6 months after the revision procedure. Both these patients were symptomatic. The inflammatory markers were raised and Tc-99 bone scan showed increased uptake in the delayed phase. Loosening of the sleeve was confirmed on CT scans. SPECT scan raised suspicion of focal infection around the sleeve in one patient. Conclusion. The early results with the use of metaphyseal sleeves are encouraging. The sleeves provided firm fixation and structural support in patient with significant metaphyseal bone loss. This obviated the need for metal augments or bone graft. Further follow up will be required to evaluate the medium and long term results of this option. We believe the addition of cementless metaphyseal fixation is a useful tool in the armamentarium of the revision knee surgeon

Purpose of the study. This study was undertaken to evaluate the early results of a new implant system - the metaphyseal sleeve - in revision total knee replacement. The femoral and tibial metaphyseal sleeves are a modular option designed to deal with metaphyseal bone loss and achieve cementless fixation over a relatively wide area in the metaphysis. Methods. Over three years, femoral and/or tibial metaphyseal sleeves were implanted in 104 knees in 103 patients (54 male and 49 female). The clinical notes and radiographs of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty one patients had revision for infection, 42 for aseptic loosening, and 31 for instability, pain or stiffness. Eighty nine knees were revised as a single stage and 15 were done as two stage procedure. Minimum follow up is 12 months (average 18.5 months). Results. At the time of final follow up the sleeves showed good osseointegration in 102 knees with no evidence of loosening or subsidence. In two knees, a progressive radiolucency was noted around the metaphyseal sleeve 6 months after the revision procedure. Both these patients were symptomatic. The inflammatory markers were raised and Tc-99 bone scan showed increased uptake in the delayed phase. Loosening of the sleeve was confirmed on CT scans. SPECT scan raised suspicion of focal infection around the sleeve in one patient. Conclusion. The early results with the use of metaphyseal sleeves are encouraging. The sleeves provided firm fixation and structural support in patient with significant metaphyseal bone loss. This obviated the need for metal augments or bone graft. Further follow up will be required to evaluate the medium and long term results of this option. We believe the addition of cementless metaphyseal fixation is a useful tool in the armamentarium of the revision knee surgeon

Introduction. Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated (as in revision of a failed stemmed implant), the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for cone ingrowth and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our novel solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis was combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone for revision TKAs with severely compromised bone. Methods. A metaphyseal cone was combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and cemented stems in a novel fashion for 35 revision TKAs. Mean age at revision TKA was 70 years, with 63% being male. Patients had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. Indications for the revision with this construct were aseptic loosening (80%) and two-stage re-implantation for periprosthetic infection (PJI; 20%). Mean follow-up was 3 years. Results. Survivorship free from revision of the cone/impaction grafting construct due to aseptic loosening was 100% at 5 years. Survivorships free from any revision of the cone/impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation were 92% and 73% at 5 years, respectively. Six knees (17%) required a reoperation (4 for infection/wound issues and 2 for periprosthetic fractures). Radiographically, 97% of cones were ingrown (1 loose cone in setting of PJI). In all but one case, impacted diaphyseal bone graft appeared to have incorporated radiographically. Conclusions. When presented with a sclerotic diaphysis and substantial metaphyseal bone loss, this innovative technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone provided near universal success in regards to implant fixation. Moreover, radiographs revealed incorporation of the bone graft, and ingrowth of the cones. While long-term follow-up is required, this novel technique provides an excellent option in the most difficult of revision TKAs. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with pre-operative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Highly-porous metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and permit use of a short cemented stem. The technique for these cones involve preparing the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphysis. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then implanted, with antibiotic-cement, into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to cementing into deficient metaphyseal bone. There are several manufacturers that provide porous cones for knee revision, but the tantalum-“trabecular metal” cones have the largest and longest clinical follow-up. The advantages of the trabecular metal cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and intermediate-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 trabecular metal cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. Multiple other studies have confirmed these results. Trabecular metal cones are now the author's preferred method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA

Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with preoperative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Trabecular metal (TM) metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) TM cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and permit use of a short cemented stem. The technique for these cones involve preparing the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphysis. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to cementing into deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the TM cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and intermediate-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 TM cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. TM cones are now the preferred method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA

Introduction. Bone loss in the distal femur and proximal tibia is frequently encountered with both complex primary and revision knee replacement surgery. Metaphyseal sleeves provide a good option for enhanced fixation in managing such defects on both the tibia and femur. We present our results in 48 patients (50 knees) with a minimum 12 month follow up (range 12 to 45). Methods. 48 patients (50 knees) who had revision knee arthroplasty for either septic or aseptic loosening. All were graded Type II or III using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) grading system of both femoral and tibial defects. A large portion of aseptic loosening revisions were for extreme osteolysis of a bicondylar knee prosthesis. Results. 52% had tibial sleeves only, 38% had both tibial and femoral sleeves and the remainder had only femoral sleeves inserted. All knee radiographs at final follow-up showed well-fixed osteointegrated components without component migration or clinically significant osteolysis. Two knees were treated with multiple arthroscopic washouts for infection. Two knees subsequently underwent manipulation under anaesthesia with good improvement in range of movement. One subsequently developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. No femoral or tibial components were revised. The average pre-operative Oxford Knee Score was 22 (12 to 38) and subsequently improved to 38 (12 to 45) post-operatively. Discussion and conclusions. Our early results show encouraging signs that porous titanium sleeves are a good option when managing large metaphyseal bone loss in both femur and tibia especially in revision arthroplasty. Post operative complications were low and functional outcome scores were comparable with more traditional knee revision arthroplasty techniques in the presence of bone loss

The outcome of 219 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in 98 male and 121 female patients, using 137 long length and 82 standard length cemented collarless double-taper femoral stems in 211 patients, with a mean age of 72 years (30 to 90) and mean follow-up of six years (two to 18) have been described previously. We have extended the follow-up to a mean of 13 years (8 to 20) in this cohort of patients in which the pre-operative bone deficiency Paprosky grading was IIIA or worse in 79% and 73% of femurs with long and standard stems, respectively. For the long stem revision group, survival to re-revision for aseptic loosening at 14 years was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91 to 100) and in patients aged > 70 years, survival was 100%. Two patients (two revisions) were lost to follow-up and 86 patients with 88 revisions had died. Worst-case analysis for survival to re-revision for aseptic loosening at 14 years was 95% (95% CI 89 to 100) and 99% (95% CI 96 to 100) for patients aged > 70 years. One additional long stem was classified as loose radiographically but not revised. For the standard stem revision group, survival to re-revision for aseptic loosening at 14 years was 91% (95% CI 83 to 99). No patients were lost to follow-up and 49 patients with 51 hips had died. No additional stems were classified as loose radiographically. Femoral revision using a cemented collarless double-taper stem, particularly with a long length stem, and in patients aged > 70 years, continues to yield excellent results up to 20 years post-operatively, including in hips with considerable femoral metaphyseal bone loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1038–45

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases the TKA is well fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For loose components, revision is typically indicated. Often, distal femoral mega prostheses are required to deal with metaphyseal bone loss. Good results have been reported in small series, however, complications, including infection remain concerning, and these implants are incredibly expensive. Although performing a mega prosthesis in the setting of a well fixed TKA is not unreasonable due to immediate full weight bearing, in my opinion, prosthetic replacement should be limited to cases of failed ORIF (rare), or in cases where fixation is likely to fail (i.e., severe osteolysis distally). For the majority of fractures above well fixed components, internal fixation is preferred for the main reason that the overwhelming majority of these fractures will heal. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral locked plating. Nails are typically considered in arthroplasties that allow intercondylar access (“open box PS” or CR implants) and have sufficient length of the distal fragment to allow multiple locking screws to be used. This situation is rare, as most distal fragments are quite short. If a nail is chosen, use of a long nail is preferred, since it allows the additional fixation and alignment that diaphyseal fill affords. Short nails should be discouraged since they can “toggle” in the meta-diaphysis and do not engage the diaphysis to improve coronal alignment. Plates can be used with any implant type and any length of distal fragment. The challenge with either fixation strategy is obtaining stable fixation of the distal fragment while maintaining length, alignment, and rotation. Fixation opportunities in the distal fragment can be limited due to obstacles caused by femoral component lugs, boxes, stems, cement mantles, and areas of stress shielding or osteolysis. Modern lateral locked plates can be inserted in a biologically friendly submuscular extra-periosteal fashion. More recent developments with polyaxial locked screws (that allow angulation prior to end-point locking) may offer even more versatility when distal fragment fixation is challenging. The goal of fixation is to obtain as many long locked screws in the distal fragment as possible. High union rates have been reported with modern locked plating techniques, however, biplanar fluoroscopic vigilance is required to prevent malalignments, typically valgus, distraction, and distal fragment hyperextension

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The causes of bone loss include: osteolysis, loosening, infection, iatrogenic or a combination. Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones or augments. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with preoperative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2 defects should be treated with non-porous metal augments—wedges or blocks. Type 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or large highly porous metal cone. Trabecular metal (TM) metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. There are both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full or stepped) TM cones available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and perhaps, permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for these cones involve sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphyseal bone. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and hopefully long term biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the TM cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and (?) lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 TM cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. TM cones are a promising method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA

Purpose: 2–5 years results in the treatment of deep infection of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after two-stage reimplantation are presented. An articulating antibiotic spacer prosthesis and a standardized antibiotic therapy were used. Material and Methods: In a prospective study 33 consecutive patients were treated with the articulating spacer, which was made on the table by cleaning and autoclaving removed parts of the infected TKA. A parenteral double antibiotic therapy in combination with rifampin was given for 10 days, followed by oral therapy for 4 weeks. Results: At a mean follow-up period of 47 months (31 to 67) three patients had reinfection (success rate 91 %). We could increase the average Hospital for Special Surgery knee score from 67 points (44 to 84) to 87 points (53 to 97) after reimplantation. Based on these results, 25 knees (76 %) were rated excellent, 5 knees (15 %) were rated good, 2 knees (6 %) were rated fair and one patient (3 %) had a poor result. Complications were one temporary peroneal palsy, one luxation of the spacer due to insufficient extensor mechanism and one fracture of the tibia due to substantial primary metaphyseal bone loss. Conclusion: Using articulating spacer prosthesis disadvantages of joint fixation between the two stages could be reduced. There is no difference in the reinfection rate compared to procedures using fixed spacer blocks. It facilitates the reimplantation and gives good functionel results

Purpose: Non-union and secondary reduction loss complicate open distal femur fractures with bone loss. We hypothesize that locking plates decrease subsequent bone grafting in these injuries, yet maintain alignment; immediate post-fixation radiographic features predict primary union. Method: From 2001 to 2004 inclusive, 34 adults with 36 open AO/OTA C-type distal femur fractures were reviewed. All were treated with locking plates and 3-month minimum follow-up. Union required radiographic bridging callus on 2/4 cortices combined with lack of symptoms. Alignment was assessed on initial and united radiographs. Antibiotic beads within a metaphyseal defect defined clinically important bone loss. Results: Eleven of 20 fractures with bone loss (55%) underwent staged bone grafting to achieve union, versus two of 16 fractures without bone loss (13%). The presence of antibiotic beads was significantly associated with staged bone grafting (p< 0.01). Of those with bone loss and staged grafting, three had posterior cortical bone loss, and only three had medial and posterior cortical bone loss, and five had segmental defects. Of nine fractures with bone loss not requiring grafting, all had radiographic posterior cortical contact; seven had radiographic medial cortical contact. Posterior (p< 0.001) and medial (p< 0.025) cortical continuity were associated with injuries not requiring bone graft. Thirty-four had accurate frontal plane reductions; thirty-five had accurate sagittal plane reductions. Complications included two non-unions, and one reduction loss. Conclusion: Despite metaphyseal bone loss, locking plates obviate the need for routine bone grafting of some open distal femur fractures. Those with radiographic posterior cortical contact and/or medial cortical contact are strongly correlated with primary union

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases the TKA is well-fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For loose components, revision is typically indicated. Often, distal femoral mega prostheses are required to deal with metaphyseal bone loss. Good results have been reported in small series, however, complications, including infection remain concerning, and these implants are incredibly expensive. Although performing a mega prosthesis in the setting of a well-fixed TKA is not unreasonable due to immediate full weight bearing, in my opinion, prosthetic replacement should be limited to cases of failed ORIF (rare), or in cases where fixation is likely to fail (i.e., severe osteolysis distally). For the majority of fractures above well-fixed components, internal fixation is preferred for the main reason that the overwhelming majority of these fractures will heal. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral locked plating. Nails are typically considered in arthroplasties that allow intercondylar access (“open box PS” or CR implants) and have sufficient length of the distal fragment to allow multiple locking screws to be used. This situation is rare, as most distal fragments are quite short. If a nail is chosen, use of a long nail is preferred, since it allows the additional fixation and alignment that diaphyseal fill affords. Short nails should be discouraged since they can “toggle” in the meta-diaphysis and do not engage the diaphysis to improve coronal alignment. Plates can be used with any implant type and any length of distal fragment. The challenge with either fixation strategy is obtaining stable fixation of the distal fragment while maintaining length, alignment, and rotation. Fixation opportunities in the distal fragment can be limited due to obstacles caused by femoral component lugs, boxes, stems, cement mantles, and areas of stress shielding or osteolysis. Modern lateral locked plates can be inserted in a biologically friendly submuscular extra-periosteal fashion. More recent developments with polyaxial locked screws (that allow angulation prior to end-point locking) may offer even more versatility when distal fragment fixation is challenging. The goal of fixation is to obtain as many long locked screws in the distal fragment as possible. High union rates have been reported with modern locked plating techniques, however, biplanar fluoroscopic vigilance is required to prevent malalignments, typically valgus, distraction, and distal fragment hyperextension

The goals of revision arthroplasty of the hip are to restore the anatomy and achieve stable fixation for new acetabular and femoral components. It is important to restore bone stock, thereby creating an environment for stable fixation for the new components. The bone defects encountered in revision arthroplasty of the hip can be classified either as contained (cavitary) or uncontained (segmental). Contained defects on both the acetabular and femoral sides can be addressed by morselised bone graft that is compacted into the defect. Severe uncontained defects are more of a problem particularly on the acetabular side where bypass fixation such as distal fixation on the femoral side is not really an alternative. Most authors agree that the use of morselised allograft bone for contained defects is the treatment of choice as long as stable fixation of the acetabular component can be achieved and there is a reasonable amount of contact with bleeding host bone for eventual ingrowth and stabilisation of the cup. On the femoral side, contained defects can be addressed with impaction grafting for very young patients or bypass fixation in the diaphysis of the femur using more extensively coated femoral components or taper devices. Segmental defects on the acetabular side have been addressed with structural allografts for the past 15 to 20 years. These are indicated in younger individuals with Type 3A defects. Structural grafts are unsuccessful in Type 3B defects. Alternatives to the structural allografts are now being utilised with shorter but encouraging results in most multiply operated hips with bone loss. New porous metals such as trabecular metal (tantalum), which has a high porosity similar to trabecular bone and also has a high coefficient of friction, provide excellent initial stability. The porosity provides a very favorable environment for bone ingrowth and bone graft remodeling. Porous metal acetabular components are now more commonly used when there is limited contact with bleeding host bone. Porous metal augments of all sizes are being used instead of structural allografts in most situations. On the femoral side, metaphyseal bone loss, whether contained or uncontained, is most often addressed by diaphyseal fixation with long porous or tapered implants, modular if necessary. Distal fixation requires at least 4 centimeters of diaphyseal bone and in Type IV femurs, a choice must be made between a mega prosthesis or a proximal femoral allograft. The proximal femoral allograft can restore bone stock for future surgery in younger patients. The mega prosthesis which is more appropriate in the older population may require total femoral replacement if there is not enough diaphyseal bone for distal fixation with cement. Cortical struts are used for circumferential diaphyseal bone defects to stabilise proximal femoral allografts, to bypass stress risers and to serve as a biological plate for stabilising peri-prosthetic fractures

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report the preliminary outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of displaced proximal humerus fractures with a new device called “Da Vinci System. ®. (Arthrex)”. It is a triangle-shaped titanium cage whose opposite faces are pierced and represents the evolution of a triangle-shaped bone block technique performed in a previous series of 33 patients. Material and methods: Between May 2005 and May 2008 we treated 54 patients (26 males and 28 females), even though we included in our study 36 patients who had a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The mean age was 60.3 years. The fractures were classified according to Neer. According to the technique, the Authors position the correct size titanium cage into the metaepiphysis, so that the fragments are reduced upon the cage and are stabilized with a minimal osteosynthesis by Kirschner wires, titanium screws or transosseous sutures. Results: The functional results were evaluated by the Constant score; with a mean follow-up of 22 months (minimum 12, maximum 36 months), the results were excellent or good in 34 cases, bad in 1 case; the mean active anterior elevation was 165 degrees, while in one case a polar necrosis is present but clinical asymptomatic. All fractures but one healed; in one case, 80 days after the operation, we had a deep infection treated with a self-customed cement spacer. Discussion: Surgical management of displaced proximal humerus fractures is still a challenge to surgeons. Optimal fixation system remains controversial, especially in complex fractures with instable fragments and osteoporotic bone. The Authors underline it is important to reconstruct the medial part of the surgical neck, to fill the bone defect, and to provide stable osteosynthesis. The “Da Vinci System” is an interesting innovation to treat difficult problems such as fracture fragments reconstruction and stability, metaphyseal bone loss and proximal humerus revascularization

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.