Nanotechnology is the study, production and controlled manipulation of materials with a grain size < 100 nm. At this level, the laws of classical mechanics fall away and those of quantum mechanics take over, resulting in unique behaviour of matter in terms of melting point, conductivity and reactivity. Additionally, and likely more significant, as grain size decreases, the ratio of surface area to volume drastically increases, allowing for greater interaction between implants and the surrounding cellular environment. This favourable increase in surface area plays an important role in mesenchymal cell differentiation and ultimately bone–implant interactions.

Basic science and translational research have revealed important potential applications for nanotechnology in orthopaedic surgery, particularly with regard to improving the interaction between implants and host bone. Nanophase materials more closely match the architecture of native trabecular bone, thereby greatly improving the osseo-integration of orthopaedic implants. Nanophase-coated prostheses can also reduce bacterial adhesion more than conventionally surfaced prostheses. Nanophase selenium has shown great promise when used for tumour reconstructions, as has nanophase silver in the management of traumatic wounds. Nanophase silver may significantly improve healing of peripheral nerve injuries, and nanophase gold has powerful anti-inflammatory effects on tendon inflammation.

Considerable advances must be made in our understanding of the potential health risks of production, implantation and wear patterns of nanophase devices before they are approved for clinical use. Their potential, however, is considerable, and is likely to benefit us all in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 569–73.

Cementless arthroplasty has progressed substantially in the recent decades from pressfit implantation to porous-coated and later HA-coated implant fixation as its ultimate current state-of-the-art incarnation. As a consequence ever younger and older patients have received the benefits of hip and other arthroplasty although attention to age-related factors is key to success. Key factors for success, from the implant perspective, are adequate primary stability of the device in the bone supported by design and surface structure variables that together with optimal implant biocompatibility result in durable osseo-integration of the device. The high activity levels of younger patients but similarly the generally inferior muscular condition of elderly patients require special attention for the stability of the hip joint with avoidance of impingement. Also bone quality may be a topic for consideration to avoid problems. Excellent survival rates past twenty years are documented in both literature and registries with quantitative studies confirming the excellent implant stability and bone quality. With an optimal consideration for patient related factors as well as anatomic reconstruction of the arthroplasty, modern cementless arthroplasty provides every patient an outlook on both excellent long term functionality and survival

Modern modular revision stems employ tapered conical (TCR) distal stems designed for immediate axial and rotational stability with subsequent osseo-integration of the stem. Modular proximal segments allow the surgeon to achieve bone contact proximally with eventual ingrowth that protects the modular junction. The independent sizing of the proximal body and distal stem allows for each portion to obtain intimate bony contact and gives the surgeon the ability precisely control the femoral head center of rotation, offset, version, leg length, and overall stability. The most important advantage of modular revision stems is versatility - the ability to manage ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). Used routinely, this allows the surgeon to quickly gain familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently master the use for all variety of situations. This also allows the operating room staff to become comfortable with the instrumentation and components. Additionally, the ability to use the stem in all bone loss situations eliminates intra-operative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly under-estimated pre-operatively or may change intra-operatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably. Paprosky 1 femoral defects can be treated with a primary-type stem for the most part. All other femoral defects can be treated with a TCR stem. Fully porous coated stems also work for many revisions but why have two different revision stem choices available when the TCR stems work for ALL defects?. The most critical advantage is the ability to separate completely the critical task of fixation from other important tasks of restoring offset, leg length, and stability. Once fixation is secured, the surgeon can concentrate on hip stability and on optimization of hip mechanics (leg length and offset). The ability to do this allows the surgeon to maximise patient functionality post-operatively. Modular tapered stems have TWO specific advantages over monolithic stems in this important surgical task. The proximal body size and length can be adjusted AFTER stem insertion if the stem goes deeper than the trial. Further, proximal/distal bone size mismatch can be accommodated. The surgeon can control the diameter of the proximal body to ensure proper bony apposition independent of distal fitting needs. If the surgeon believes that proximal bone ingrowth is important to facilitate proximal bone remodeling, modular TCR stems can more easily accomplish this. The most under-appreciated advantage is the straightforward instrumentation system that makes the operation easier for the staff and the surgeon, while enhancing the operating room efficiency and reducing cost. Also, although the implant itself may result in more cost, most modular systems allow for a decrease in inventory requirements, which make up the cost differential. One theoretical disadvantage of modular revision stems is modular junction fracture, which can happen if the junction itself is not protected by bone. Ensuring proximal bone support can minimise this problem. Once porous ingrowth occurs proximally, the risk of junction fracture is eliminated. Even NON-modular stems fracture when proximal bone support is missing. Another theoretical issue is modular junction corrosion but this not a clinical one, since both components are titanium. One can also fail to connect properly the two parts during surgery

Introduction. Intimate bone-implant contact is a requirement for achieving stable component fixation and osseo-integration of porous-coated implants in TKA. However, consistently attaining a press-fit and a tight-fitting femoral component can be problematic when using conventional instrumentation. We present a new robotic cutting-guide system that permits intra-operative adjustment of the femoral resections such that a specified amount of press-fit can be consistently attained. System Description: A.R.T. (Apex Robotic Technology) employs a miniature bone-mounted robotic cutting-guide and flexible software that permits the surgeon to adjust the anterior and posterior femoral resections in increments of 0.25 mm per resection, allowing a maximum of 1.5mm of total added press in the AP dimension. Methods. The accuracy of guide-positioning and bone-cutting with A.R.T. was assessed in bench testing on synthetic bones (SAWBONES®) using an optical comparator. The individual guide locations for 16 femoral cut positioning sequences (80 guide positions in total) were measured. Femoral resections were performed with A.R.T. on eight sawbones (two per fit-adjustment setting) and the anterior-posterior dimensions of the final cut surfaces were also measured. Eight sawbones were prepared using conventional instrumentation (jigs) as controls: four with a 0 mm press-fit block and four with a +0.5 mm specially manufactured press-fit block. Results. The robotic guide-positioning error in the AP dimension was −0.04 ± 0.14mm (mean ± standard deviation, SD). The standard deviation in guide positioning for the distal, anterior chamfer and posterior chamfer resections was 0.03° and 0.17mm. The average error in the AP dimension between the targeted and measured cuts was −0.14±0.13mm with A.R.T. and 0.7±0.52mm with conventional blocks (p=0.021). Conclusions. A.R.T. guide positioning precision was found to be sub-degree and sub-millimetric, allowing for significantly more accurate and repeatable bone resections than conventional instrumentation

Removal of well-fixed cement at the time of revision THA for sepsis is time consuming and risks bone stock loss, femoral perforation or fracture. We report our experience of two-stage revision for infection in a series of cases in which we have retained well-fixed femoral cement. All patients underwent two-stage revision for infection. At the first stage the prostheses and acetabular cement were removed but when the femoral cement mantle demonstrated good osseo-integration it was left in-situ. Following Girdlestone excision arthroplasty (GEA), patients received local antibiotics delivered by cement spacers, as well as systemic antibiotics. At the second stage the existing cement mantle was reamed, washed and dried and then a femoral component was cemented into the old mantle. Sixteen patients (M:F 5:11) had at least three years follow-up (mean 80 months – range 43 to 91). One patient died of an unrelated cause at 53 months. Recurrence of infection was not suspected in this case. The mean time to first stage revision was 57 months (3 to 155). The mean time between first and second stages was nine months (1 to 35). Organisms were identified in 14 (87.5%) cases (5 Staphylococcus Aureas, 4 Group B Streptococcus, 2 Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, 2 Enterococcus Faecalis, 1 Escheria Coli). At second stage, five (31.2%) acetabulae were uncemented and 11 (68.8%) were cemented. There were two complications; one patient dislocated 41 days post-operatively and a second patient required an acetabular revision at 44 days for failure of fixation. No evidence of infection was found at re-revision. One patient (1/16, 7%) has been re-revised for recurrent infection. Currently no other patients are suspected of having a recurrence of infection (93%). Retention of a well-fixed femoral cement mantle during two-stage revision for infection and subsequent cement-in-cement reconstruction appears safe with a success rate of 93%. Advantages include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock, improved component fixation and a technically easier second stage procedure

Implant-associated infection is a major source of morbidity in orthopaedic surgery. There has been extensive research into the development of materials that prevent biofilm formation, and hence, reduce the risk of infection. Silver nanoparticle technology is receiving much interest in the field of orthopaedics for its antimicrobial properties, and the results of studies to date are encouraging. Antimicrobial effects have been seen when silver nanoparticles are used in trauma implants, tumour prostheses, bone cement, and also when combined with hydroxyapatite coatings. Although there are promising results with in vitro and in vivo studies, the number of clinical studies remains small. Future studies will be required to explore further the possible side effects associated with silver nanoparticles, to ensure their use in an effective and biocompatible manner. Here we present a review of the current literature relating to the production of nanosilver for medical use, and its orthopaedic applications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:582–9.