A consecutive series of 235 total knee arthroplasties using the PFC system was followed prospectively for at least ten years in 186 patients. The operation was for osteoarthritis in 150 knees, for rheumatoid arthritis in 83, and for Paget’s disease and femoral osteonecrosis in one knee each. At the latest review 56 patients had died, fi ve were too ill to assess and three could not be traced. The PFC knee replacement utilised was a nonconforming posterior-cruciate-retaining prosthesis with a polyethylene insert which is fl at in the sagittal plane. The patella was resurfaced using a metal-backed component in 170 cases, but later in the series we used an all-polyethylene component in 22 knees; 43 patellae were not resurfaced. The survival without need for reoperation for any reason was 90% at ten years. Nineteen revisions were component-related due to failure of nine metal-backed patellae, nine polyethylene inserts, and one unresurfaced patella; two reoperations were for synovectomy (one for recurrent haemarthrosis and one for recurrent rheumatoid synovitis) and three were for metastatic joint infection. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening of femoral or tibial components, or the all-polyethylene patellar replacement. The PFC system provides good and predictable results in tricompartmental arthritis of the knee. Loosening appeared to be negligible, but there were wear-related problems in 8%. The change from a metal-backed patella and an increase in the contact area of the tibial insert should provide further improvement by minimising wear

We describe the application of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthetic replacement in skeletally-mature patients undergoing revision for failed joint replacement with resultant limb-length inequality after malignant or non-malignant disease. This prosthesis was developed for tumour surgery in skeletally-immature patients but has now been adapted for use in revision procedures to reconstruct the joint or facilitate an arthrodesis, replace bony defects and allow limb length to be restored gradually in the post-operative period.

We record the short-term results in nine patients who have had this procedure after multiple previous reconstructive operations. In six, the initial reconstruction had been performed with either allograft or endoprosthetic replacement for neoplastic disease and in three for non-neoplastic disease. The essential components of the prosthesis are a magnetic disc, a gearbox and a drive screw which allows painless lengthening of the prosthesis using the principle of electromagnetic induction. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (18 to 68) with a mean follow-up of 34 months (12 to 62). They had previously undergone a mean of six (2 to 14) open procedures on the affected limb before revision with the non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis.

The mean length gained was 56 mm (19 to 107) requiring a mean of nine (3 to 20) lengthening episodes performed in the outpatient department. There was one case of recurrent infection after revision of a previously infected implant and one fracture of the prosthesis after a fall. No amputations were performed. Planned exchange of the prosthesis was required in three patients after attainment of the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There was no failure of the lengthening mechanism. The Mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society rating score was 22 of 30 available points (18 to 28).

The use of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis in this manner provided patients with good functional results and restoration of leg-length equality, without the need for multiple open lengthening procedures.