The well-fixed cemented femoral stem and surrounding cement can be challenging to remove. Success requires evaluation of the quality of the cement mantle (interface lucency), position of the stem, extent of cement below the tip of the stem and skill with the specialised instruments and techniques needed to remove the stem and cement without perforating the femur. Smooth surfaced stems can usually be easily removed from the surrounding cement mantle with a variety of stem extractors that attach to the trunnion or an extraction hole on the implant. Roughened stems can be freed from the surrounding cement mantle with osteotomes or a narrow high speed burr and then extracted with the above instruments. Following this, the well-fixed cement mantle needs to be removed. Adequate exposure and visualization of the cement column is essential to remove the well-fixed cement without damage to the bone in the femur. This is important since fixation of a revision femoral component typically requires at least 4 cm of contact with supportive cortical bone, which can be difficult to obtain if the femur is perforated or if the isthmus damaged. Proximally, cement in the metaphyseal region can be thinned with a high speed burr, then split radially and removed piecemeal. It is essential to remember that both osteotomes and high speed burrs will cut thru bone easier than cement and use of these instruments poses a substantial risk of unintended bone removal and perforation of the femur if done improperly. These instruments should, as a result, be used under direct vision. Removal of more distal cement in the femur typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO) to allow for adequate access to the well-fixed cement in the bowed femoral canal. An ETO also facilitates more efficient removal of cement in the proximal femur. The ETO should be carefully planned so that it is distal enough to allow for access to the end of the cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation since the straight cement removal instruments cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column without risk of perforation. An ETO that is too distal makes cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. Cement below the level of the ETO cannot be directly visualised and specialised instruments are necessary to safely remove this distal cement. Radiofrequency cement removal devices use high frequency (ultrasonic) radio waves to melt the cement within the canal. Although cement removal with these devices is time consuming and tedious, they do substantially reduce the chances of femoral perforation. These devices can, however, generate considerable heat locally and can result in thermal injury to the bone and surrounding tissues. Once the distal end of the cement mantle is penetrated, backbiting or hooked curettes can be use to remove any remaining cement from within the canal. It is important that all cement be removed from the femur since reamers used for preparation of the distal canal will be deflected by any retained cement, which could result in eccentric reaming and inadvertent perforation of the femur and make fixation of a new implant very challenging. An intra-operative x-ray can be very helpful to insure that all cement has been removed before reaming is initiated. One should always plan for a possible femoral perforation and have cortical strut grafts and a stem available that will safely bypass the end of the cement column and the previous cement restrictor

The extended proximal femoral osteotomy has been used primarily in conjunction with cementless fixation, but has been described for use with cemented stems as well. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy is indicated for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless implants, as well as removal of cement in patients with a loose femoral component in a well-fixed cement mantle. Although the osteotomy is not required for many femoral revisions, it is an absolute indication in patients with femoral component loosening and subsequent varus remodeling of the proximal femur. The osteotomy diminishes the risk of an inadvertent fracture of the often compromised greater trochanter especially upon removal of a failed femoral component from its subsided or migrated position. The osteotomy enhances the exposure of the acetabulum which may be difficult in the revision setting due to multiple surgeries, severe migration of the acetabular component or the heterotopic ossification. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy can also be used in the primary setting when a proximal femoral deformity interferes with straight reaming of the femoral canal, such as in patients with various dysplasias, previous corrective osteotomies or malunions

The extended proximal femoral osteotomy has been used primarily in conjunction with cementless fixation, but has been described for use with cemented stems as well. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy is indicated for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless implants, as well as removal of cement in patients with a loose femoral component in a well-fixed cement mantle. Although the osteotomy is not required for many femoral revisions, it is an absolute indication in patients with femoral component loosening and subsequent varus remodeling of the proximal femur. The osteotomy diminishes the risk of an inadvertent fracture of the often compromised greater trochanter especially upon removal of a failed femoral component from its subsided or migrated position. The osteotomy enhances the exposure of the acetabulum which may be difficult in the revision setting due to multiple surgeries, severe migration of the acetabular component or heterotopic ossification. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy can also be used in the primary setting when a proximal femoral deformity interferes with straight reaming of the femoral canal, such as in patients with various dysplasias, previous corrective osteotomies or malunions

The well-fixed cemented femoral stem and surrounding cement can be challenging to remove. Success requires evaluation of the quality of the cement mantle (interface lucency), position of the stem, extent of cement below the tip of the stem and skill with the specialised instruments and techniques needed to remove the stem and cement without perforating the femur. Smooth surfaced stems can usually be easily removed from the surrounding cement mantle with a variety of stem extractors that attach to the trunnion or an extraction hole on the implant. Roughened stems can be freed from the surrounding cement mantle with osteotomes or a narrow high speed burr and then extracted with the above instruments. Following this, the well fixed cement mantle needs to be removed. Adequate exposure and visualization of the cement column is essential to remove the well-fixed cement without damage to the bone in the femur. This is important since fixation of a revision femoral component typically requires at least 4cm of contact with supportive cortical bone, which can be difficult to obtain if the femur is perforated or if the isthmus damaged. Proximally, cement in the metaphyseal region can be thinned with a high speed burr, then split radially and removed piecemeal. It is essential to remember that both osteotomes and high speed burrs will cut thru bone easier than cement and use of these instruments poses a substantial risk of unintended bone removal and perforation of the femur if done improperly. These instruments should, as a result, be used under direct vision. Removal of more distal cement in the femur typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO) to allow for adequate access to the well-fixed cement in the bowed femoral canal. An ETO also facilitates more efficient removal of cement in the proximal femur. The ETO should be carefully planned so that it is distal enough to allow for access to the end of the cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation since the straight cement removal instruments cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column without risk of perforation. An ETO that is too distal makes cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. Cement below the level of the ETO cannot be directly visualised and specialised instruments are necessary to safely remove this distal cement. Radiofrequency cement removal devices (OSCAR) use high frequency (ultrasonic) radio waves to melt the cement within the canal. Although cement removal with these devices is time consuming and tedious, they do substantially reduce the chances of femoral perforation. These devices can, however, generate considerable heat locally and can result in thermal injury to the bone and surrounding tissues. Once the distal end of the cement mantle is penetrated, backbiting or hooked curettes can be used to remove any remaining cement from within the canal. It is important that all cement be removed from the femur since reamers used for preparation of the distal canal will be deflected by any retained cement, which could result in eccentric reaming and inadvertent perforation of the femur and make fixation of a new implant very challenging. An intraoperative x-ray can be very helpful to insure that all cement has been removed before reaming is initiated

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and the removal of well-fixed femoral stems can be compounded by several pitfalls. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the literature. The most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy presented by Wagner and the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) described by Younger et al. Both techniques allow the surgeon to have better intraoperative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless femoral stems. Tips and tricks of the endofemoral technique for the removal of well-fixed femoral stems are presented

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

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure, especially in cases with well-fixed implants. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the current literature, while the most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy or the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). Those techniques allow the surgeon to have a better intra-operative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union are not unremarkable. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and uncemented femoral stems

The well-fixed femoral stem can be challenging to remove. Removal of an extensively osteointegrated cementless stem requires disruption of the entire implant-bone interface while a well-fixed cemented stem requires complete removal of all adherent cement from the underlying cortical bone in both the metaphysis and diaphysis of the femur. In these situations, access to those areas of the femur distal to the metaphyseal flare that are beyond the reach of osteotomes and high speed burrs is necessary. This typically requires use of an extended femoral osteotomy (ETO). The ETO should be carefully planned so that it extends distal enough to allow for access to the end of the stem or cement column and still allow for stable fixation of a new implant. Too short of an ETO increases the risk of femoral perforation by straight burrs, trephines or cement removal instruments that cannot negotiate the bowed femoral canal to access the end of the cement column or end of the stem without risk of perforation. The ETO should also be long enough to allow for fixation with at least 2 cerclage cables. An ETO that is too distal makes implant and cement removal easier, but may not allow for sufficient fixation of a new revision femoral stem. After insertion of the revision stem, the osteotomy is reduced back around the stem and secured in place with cerclage cables

To report our experience with the use of local antibiotic co-delivery with a synthetic bone graft substitute during a second stage re-implantation of an infected proximal humeral replacement. A 72 year old man was admitted to our department with a pathological fracture through an osteolytic lesion in the left proximal humerus, due to IgG Myelomatosis. He was initially treated with a cemented proximal humerus replacement hemiarthroplasty. Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) with significant joint distention was evident three weeks post operatively. Revision surgery confirmed presence of a large collection of pus and revealed disruption of the soft tissue reattachment tube, as well as complete retraction of rotator cuff and residual capsule. All modular components were removed and an antibiotic-laden cement spacer (1.8g of Clindamycin and Gentamycin, respectively) was implanted onto the well-fixed cemented humeral stem. Initial treatment with i.v. Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid was changed to Rifampicin and Fusidic Acid during a further 8 weeks after cultures revealed growth of S. epidermidis. During second stage revision, a hybrid inverse prosthesis with silver coating was implanted, with a total of 20 ml Cerament ™G (injected into the glenoid cavity prior to insertion of the base plate and around the humeral implant-bone interface) and again stabilized with a Trevira tube. Unfortunately, this prosthesis remained unstable, ultimately requiring re-revision to a completely new constrained reverse prosthesis with a custom glenoid shell and silver-coated proximal humeral component. 18 months postoperatively, the patient's shoulder remains pain free and stable, without signs of persistent or reinfection since the initial second stage revision. The function however, unfortunately remains poor. This case report illustrates the application of an antibiotic-eluting bone graft substitute in a specific clinical situation, where co-delivery of an antibiotic together with a bone remodeling agent may be beneficial to simultaneously address PJI as well as poor residual bone quality

This retrospective study evaluates the outcome of patients with a late infection of a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) treated with two-stage revision with retention of the original well-fixed femoral cement mantle. Operation reports of all two stage revision performed in our clinic between 2009 and 2013 were reviewed (249 patients). Patients in which femoral cement mantle was retained during surgery were included (10 patients). The average age at the first stage revision procedure was 61.5 years (range 38–80). The mean follow-up period was 26 months (range 5 to 54 months). Clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Successful treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was achieved in six out of 10 patients; four patients showed no signs of infection during follow-up. Two of these patients received three months of antibiotic treatment after second stage, because of positive cultures at second stage. The other two successfully treated patients showed recurrence of PJI one week after second stage. Debridement with retention of prosthesis (DAIR) was performed. Newly cultured microorganisms were successfully treated with 3 months of antibiotics. The other four patients were considered to be failures; in three patients, the femoral cement mantle was removed after the first stage due to recurrent infection. The other failure showed a recurrent PJI after second stage. Despite DAIR and three months of antibiotic treatment, this patient is treated with suppressive antibiotics until latest follow-up. Based on this study, results in managing an infected THA with cement-within-cement revision are disappointing. Therefore, more research is required to determine which patients are appropriate for cement-within-cement revision

Over a four year period of time, 142 consecutive hip revisions were performed with the use of an extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Twenty patients had insufficient follow-up or were followed elsewhere and were excluded from the review. The remaining 122 revisions included 83 women and 39 men. Average age at time of revision was 63.8 (26–84) years. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening (114), component failure (4), recurrent dislocation (2), femoral fracture (1) and second stage re-implantation for infection (1). The extended proximal femoral osteotomy gave easy access to the distal bone-cement or bone prosthesis interface in all cases. It allowed neutral reaming of the femoral canal and implantation of the revision component in proper alignment. Varus remodeling of the proximal femur secondary to loosening was handled with relative ease implementing the osteotomy. Average time from the beginning of the osteotomy procedure to the complete removal of prosthesis and cement was 35 minutes. There were no non-unions of the osteotomised fragments at an average post-operative follow-up of 2.6 years with no cases of proximal migration of the greater trochanteric fragment greater than 2 mm, there was evidence of radiographic union of the osteotomy site in all cases by 3 months. Stem fixation with bone ingrowth was noted in 112 (92%) of 122 hips, stable fibrous fixation was seen in 9 (7%) and 1 stem was unstable and was subsequently revised. However, there was an incidence of 7% perforation rate of the femoral canal distal to the osteotomy site during cement removal. This was most prevalent where there was greater than 2 cm of cement plug present which was well bonded. When OSCAR was used instead of hand tools or power reamers, there were no perforations in 51 cases. There has been no failure of fixation with fully porous coated stems inserted in the canals where OSCAR had removed cement. Also, the use of OSCAR has allowed us to shorten the osteotomy, thus allowing a longer, intact isthmus to remain so that shorter stems can be used. We highly recommend the use of OSCAR in conjunction with the extended osteotomy for removal of well-fixed distal cement beyond the extended osteotomy site

Over a four year period of time, 142 consecutive hip revisions were performed with the use of an extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Twenty patients had insufficient follow up or were followed elsewhere and were excluded from the review. The remaining 122 revisions included 83 women and 39 men. Average age at time of revision was 63.8 (26–84) years. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening (114), component failure (4), recurrent dislocation (2), femoral fracture (1) and second stage re-implantation for infection (1). The extended proximal femoral osteotomy gave easy access to the distal bone-cement or bone prosthesis interface in all cases. It allowed neutral reaming of the femoral canal and implantation of the revision component in proper alignment. Varus remodeling of the proximal femur secondary to loosening was handled with relative ease implementing the osteotomy. Average time from the beginning of the osteotomy procedure to the complete removal of prosthesis and cement was thirty-five minutes. There were no non-unions of the osteotomised fragments at an average post-op follow up of 2.6 years with no cases of proximal migration of the greater trochanteric fragment greater than 2mm, there was evidence of radiographic union of the osteotomy site in all cases by 3 months. Stem fixation with bone ingrowth was noted in 112 (92%) of 122 hips, stable fibrous fixation was seen in 9 (7%) and 1 stem was unstable and was subsequently revised. However, there was an incidence of 7% perforation rate of the femoral canal distal to the osteotomy site during cement removal. This was most prevalent where there was greater than 2cm of cement plug present which was well bonded. When OSCAR was used instead of hand tools or power reamers, there were no perforations in 51 cases. There has been no failure of fixation with fully porous coated stems inserted in the canals where OSCAR had removed cement. Also, the use of OSCAR has allowed us to shorten the osteotomy, thus allowing a longer, intact isthmus to remain so that shorter stems can be used. We highly recommend the use of OSCAR in conjunction with the extended osteotomy for removal of well-fixed distal cement beyond the extended osteotomy site

Over a four year period of time, 142 consecutive hip revisions were performed with the use of an extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Twenty patients had insufficient follow-up or were followed elsewhere and were excluded from the review. The remaining 122 revisions included 83 women and 39 men. Average age at time of revision was 63.8 (26–84) years. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening (114), component failure (4), recurrent dislocation (2), femoral fracture (1) and second stage re-implantation for infection (1). The extended proximal femoral osteotomy gave easy access to the distal bone-cement or bone prosthesis interface in all cases. It allowed neutral reaming of the femoral canal and implantation of the revision component in proper alignment. Varus remodeling of the proximal femur secondary to loosening was handled with relative ease implementing the osteotomy. Average time from the beginning of the osteotomy procedure to the complete removal of prosthesis and cement was thirty-five minutes. There were no non-unions of the osteotomised fragments at an average post-op follow-up of 2.6 years with no cases of proximal migration of the greater trochanteric fragment greater than 2mm, there was evidence of radiographic union of the osteotomy site in all cases by 3 months. Stem fixation with bone ingrowth was noted in 112 (92%) of 122 hips, stable fibrous fixation was seen in 9 (7%) and 1 stem was unstable and was subsequently revised. However, there was an incidence of 7% perforation rate of the femoral canal distal to the osteotomy site during cement removal. This was most prevalent where there was greater than 2cm of cement plug present which was well bonded. When OSCAR was used instead of hand tools or power reamers, there were no perforations in 51 cases. There has been no failure of fixation with fully porous coated stems inserted in the canals where OSCAR had removed cement. Also, the use of OSCAR has allowed us to shorten the osteotomy, thus allowing a longer, intact isthmus to remain so that shorter stems can be used. We highly recommend the use of OSCAR in conjunction with the extended osteotomy for removal of well-fixed distal cement beyond the extended osteotomy site