Introduction. Cemented stems have shown 90–100% survivorship when coupled with polyethylene acetabular component. This study aims to compare cemented stem behaviour in combination with large metal on metal (MOM) vs. metal on poly (MOP) bearings. Patients and Methods. 100 patients were recruited into a single centre RCT (we required 40 in each group for power .90 to confirm stem subsidence of >0.5mm at 2 years; p< 0.05). Recruits were randomized to MOP (28mm) or MOM femoral heads with CPCS cemented femoral stem. Assessments included X-rays (AP pelvis), Harris Hip Scores, blood metal ion levels and patient questionnaires (WOMAC, SF-36, satisfaction questionnaire). Evaluations were done pre-operatively and 3, 12 and 24 months post operatively; blood metal ion measures at 1 year. Results. There were 50 patients in each arm of study matched for age (64 ± 8.5) and BMI (29.04 ±5.5). There was no difference in femoral stem subsidence at 2 years 1.34 (±1.3) and 1.4 (±1.2) mm for MOM and MOP respectively (p=0.88). There was significant improvement in HHS from pre-op to 3 months: 41 to 87 for MOM and 44 to 86 for MOP (p=0.00). This was maintained with no difference between groups at 2 years (p=0.74). Similar pattern was seen for WOMAC and SF-36 scores for both groups at 2 years (p>0.05). Increased blood Cobalt and Chromium levels were observed in 17% and 0% for MOM and MOP group. MOM group reported better patient satisfaction for overall (91% vs. 79%), pain relief (82% vs 66%) and improvement in ADL activities (94% vs.70%) at 2 years. Conclusions. There were no significant differences between groups for stem behavior, clinical and patient reported outcomes. Despite higher patient satisfaction reported by MOM patients, increased metal ion levels had raised concerns regarding the use of MOM bearings with cemented stems for primary THR

The C-Stem in its design as a triple tapered stem, is the logical development of the original Charnley flat-back polished stem. The concept, design and the surgical technique cater for a limited slip of the stem within the cement mantle transferring the load more proximally.

Five thousand two hundred and thirty three primary procedures using a C-stem have been carried out since 1993. We reviewed all 621 cases that had their total hip arthroplasty before 1998.

Sixty nine patients (70 hips) had died and 101 hips had not reached a ten-year clinical and radiological follow-up and had not been revised. Thirty-two hips had been revised before 10 years, none were revised for aseptic stem loosening and no stems. The indications for revision were Infection in 4, dislocation in 3, aseptic cup loosening in 24 and unexplained pain in 1.

The remaining 418 hips had a mean follow-up of 12 years (range 10–15 years). There were 216 women and 173 men, and 34 patients had bilateral LFAs. The patients' mean age at surgery was 53 years (range 16–83 years). Thirty four hips had been revised at the time of review. The reasons for revision were infection in 5, dislocation in 2, aseptic cup loosening in 24 and 1 for neuralgia paraesthetica where the stem was well fixed. Two hips were revised for stem fracture.

There were no revisions for stem loosening but 2 stems were revised for fracture - both with a defective cement mantle proximally. The clinical results are very encouraging and they support the concept of the Charnley cemented low friction arthroplasty, but place a demand on the understanding of the technique and its execution at surgery.

ZrN-multilayer coating is clinically well established in total knee arthroplasty [1-3] and has demonstrated significant reduction in polyethylene wear and metal ion release [4,5]. The goal of our study was to analyze the biotribological behaviour of the ZrN-multilayer coating on a polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stem. CoCr28Mo6 alloy hip stems with ZrN-multilayer coating (CoreHip®AS) were tested versus an un-coated version. In a worst-case-scenario the stems with ceramic heads have been tested in bovine serum in a severe cement interface debonding condition under a cyclic load of 3,875 N for 15 million cycles. After 1, 3, 5, 10 & 15 million cycles the surface texture was analysed by scanning-electron-microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX). Metal ion concentration of Co,Cr,Mo was measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) after each test interval. Based on SEM/EDX analysis, it has been demonstrated that the ZrN-multilayer coating keeps his integrity over 15 million cycles of severe stem cemented interface debonding without any exposure of the CoCr28Mo6 substrate. The ZrN-multilayer coated polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stem has shown a reduction of Co & Cr metal ion release by two orders of a magnitude, even under severe stem debonding and high interface micro-motion conditions. ZrN-multilayer coating on polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stems might be a suitable option for further minimisation of Co & Cr metal ion release in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical evidence has to be proven during the next years

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

The demand for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has grown significantly in recent years. The two major fixation methods for stems in revision TKA include cemented and ‘hybrid’ fixation. We explore the optimal fixation method using data from recent, well-designed comparative studies. We performed a systematic review of comparative studies published within the last 10 years with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. To allow for missing data, a random-effects meta-analysis of all available cases was performed. The odds ratio (OR) for the relevant outcome was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The effects of small studies were analyzed using a funnel plot, and asymmetry was assessed using Egger's test. The primary outcome measure was all-cause failure. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause revision, aseptic revision and radiographic failure. There was a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems when compared to cemented stems (p = 0.006) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87). Heterogeneity was 4.3% and insignificant (p = 0.39). There was a trend toward superior hybrid performance for all other outcome measures including all-cause re-revision, aseptic re-revision and radiographic failure. Recent evidence suggests a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems in revision TKA. There is also a trend favoring the use of hybrid stems for all outcome variables assessed in this study. This is the first time a significant difference in outcome has been demonstrated through systematic review of these two modes of stem fixation. We therefore recommend the use, where possible, of hybrid stems in revision TKA

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different. In the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The author's personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The author's current indication for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is an extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems, unfortunately, may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however, it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

Polyimide (MP-1, MMATech, Haifa, Israel), is a high performance aerospace thermoplastic used for its lubricity, stability, inertness and radiation resistance. A wear resistant thin robust bearing is needed for total hip arthroplasty (THR). After independent laboratory testing, in 2006, the author used the material as a bearing in two Reflection (Smith and Nephew, USA) hip surgeries. The first, a revision for polyethylene wear, survives with no evidence of wear, noise, new osteolysis or complications related to the MP-1 bearing after 16 yrs. The second donated his asymptomatic MP-1 hip at 6.5yrs for post-mortem examination. There were no osteoclasts, cellular reaction bland in contrast to that of polyethylene. In 2013 a clinical study with ethical committee approval was started using a Biolox Delta (Ceramtec, Germany) head against a polyimide liner in 97 patients. MMATech sold all liners, irradiated: steam 52:45. Sixteen were re-machined in New Zealand. Acetabular shells were Delta PF (LIMA, Italy). The liner locked by taper. The cohort consisted of 46:51 M:F, and ages 43 to 85, mean 65. Ten received cemented stems. For contralateral surgery, a ceramic or polyethylene liner was used. Initial patients were lower demand, later, more active patients, mountain-biking and running. All patients have on-going follow up, including MP-1 liner revision cases. There has been no measurable wear, or osteolysis around the acetabular components using weight-bearing radiographs. Squeaking within the first 6 weeks was noted in 39 number of cases and subtle increase in palpable friction, (passive rotation at 50 degrees flexion), but then disappeared. There were 6 revisions, four of which were related to cementless Stemsys implants (Evolutis, Italy) fixed distally with proximal linear lucencies in Gruen zones 1 and 7, and 2 and 6. No shells were revised and MP-1 liners were routinely changed to ceramic or polyethylene. The liners showed no head contact at the apex, with highly polished contact areas. There were no deep or superficial infections, but one traumatic anterior dislocation at 7 years associated with 5 mm subsidence of a non-collared stem. The initial squeaking and increased friction was due to the engineering of the liner / shell composite as implanted, not allowing adequate clearance for fluid film lubrication and contributed to by shell distortion during impaction. The revised bearings were “equatorial” rather than polar, and with lack of wear or creep this never fully resolved. Where the clearance was better, function was normal. The “slow” utilization was due to my ongoing concern with clearances not being correct. The revision of 4 Stemsys stems, tribology issues may have contributed, but non “MP-1” / Stemsys combinations outside this study have shown the same response, thought to be due to de-bonding of the hydroxyapatite coating. With correct engineering and clearances, a 3.6 mm thick MP-1 bearing, a surface Ra<0.5, steam sterilized, shows no appreciable wear, and with confidence, can be used as a high performance THR bearing

Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During reverse replacement the biomechanical forces are different on the humeral stem. Stem loosening during reverse replacement may have different factors than anatomic replacement. A systemic review of 41 reverse arthroplasty clinical studies compared the functional outcomes and complications of cemented and uncemented stems in approximately 1800 patients. There was no difference in the risk of stem loosening or revision between cemented and uncemented stems. Uncemented stems have at least equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with cemented stems during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is associated with fully cemented stems or well ingrown components that exclude potential synovial debris that may cause osteolysis

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different, in the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The authors' personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The authors' current indications for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is a extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems unfortunately may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons' armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

There has been an evolution in revision hip arthroplasty towards cementless reconstruction. Whilst cemented arthroplasty works well in the primary setting, the difficulty with achieving cement fixation in femoral revisions has led to a move towards removal of cement, where it was present, and the use of ingrowth components. These have included proximally loading or, more commonly, distally fixed stems. We have been through various iterations of these, notably with extensively porous coated cobalt chrome stems and recently with taper-fluted titanium stems. As a result of this, cemented stems have become much less popular in the revision setting. Allied to concerns about fixation and longevity of cemented fixation revision, there were also worries in relation to bone cement implantation syndrome when large cement loads were pressurised into the femoral canal at the time of stem cementation. This was particularly the case with longer stems. Technical measures are available to reduce that risk but the fear is nevertheless there. In spite of this direction of travel and these concerns, there is, however, still a role for cemented stems in revision hip arthroplasty. This role is indeed expanding. First and foremost, the use of cement allows for local antibiotic delivery using a variety of drugs both instilled in the cement at the time of manufacture or added by the surgeon when the cement is mixed. This has advantages when dealing with periprosthetic infection. Thus, cement can be used both as interval spacers but also for definitive fixation when dealing with periprosthetic hip infection. The reconstitution of bone stock is always attractive, particularly in younger patients or those with stove pipe canals. This is achieved well using impaction grafting with cement and is another extremely good use of cement. In the very elderly or those in whom proximal femoral resection is needed at the time of revision surgery, distal fixation with cement provides a good solution for immediate weight bearing and does not have the high a risk of fracture seen with large cementless stems. Cement is also useful in cases of proximal femoral deformity or where cement has been used in a primary arthroplasty previously. We have learnt that if the cement is well-fixed then the bond of cement-to-cement is excellent and therefore retention of the cement mantle and recementation into that previous mantle is a great advantage. This avoids the risks of cement removal and allows for much easier fixation. Stems have been designed specifically to allow this cement-in-cement technique. It can be used most readily with polished tapered stems - tap out a stem, gain access at the time of revision surgery and reinsert it. It is, however, now increasingly used when any cemented stems are removed provided that the cement mantle is well fixed. The existing mantle is either wide enough to accommodate the cement-in-cement revision or can be expanded using manual instruments or ultrasonic tools. The cement interface is then dried and a new stem cemented in place. Whilst the direction of travel in revision hip arthroplasty has been towards cementless fixation, particularly with tapered distally fixed designs, the reality is that there is still a role for cement for its properties of immediate fixation, reduced fracture risk, local antibiotic delivery, impaction grafting and cement-in-cement revision

The use of a cemented implant instead of a spacer has been proposed due to the improved function in comparison with a spacer. Unfortunately the removal of a conventional cemented stem can be challenging. The use of a short cemented stem can overcome this problem. Between July 2011 and May 2013, 10 infected hips were treated with a short cemented stem as a spacer. The infected implants were cemented in 6 cases and cementless in 4 cases. Mean time from index operation was 3 years (range 0 to 8 years). It was the first treatment for infection in all cases. Antibiotic loaded cement and an all-poly cup was used in all cases. The bugs were staph aureus and staph epidermidis in most cases. A Friendly short cemented stem with specific cement restrictor and standard cementing tecnique was used in all cases. This stem has been successfully tested in over 200 patients and approved by TUV to be released on the marked. In all cases, the infection was successfully cured with antibiotics for a period ranging from 3 to 5 months. 2 patients were revised after the infection was cured for recurrent dislocation. No recurrent infection was found at the latest follow up. One stage revision is gaining in popularity for the decreased morbidity and better quality of life of the patients. Weak points of one-stage revision are slightly inferior results in terms of eradication of the infection and the fact that it can be done only with cemented implants. Cemented implants show inferior durability than cementless implants and are difficult to remove if revision is needed. The use of a short cemented stem can couple the advantages of one stage revision and the fact that it is easily removed if this is needed for various reasons (aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation and periprosthetic fracture). Contraindications to this technique are severe bone loss in the acetabulum or in the proximal femur

Femoral revision after cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem. Bone loss may occur because of implant loosening or polyethylene wear, and should be addressed at time of revision surgery. Stem revision can be performed with modular cementless reconstruction stems involving the diaphysis for fixation, or alternatively with restoration of the bone stock of the proximal femur with the use of allografts. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur in Paprosky defects Type 1 or 2. In combination with a regular length cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for restoration of femoral bone stock through incorporation and remodeling of the proximal femur. Cavitary bone defects affecting the metaphysis and partly the diaphysis leading to a wide femoral canal are ideal indications for this technique. In case of combined segmental-cavitary defects a metal mesh is used to contain the defect which is then filled and impacted with bone grafts. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 2 to 4 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a dummy of the dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is inserted and tapped into the femur to ensure that the chips are firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is implanted into the newly created medullary canal using bone cement. To date several studies from Europe have shown favorable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported. Advantages of IBG include the restoration of the bone stock in the proximal femur, the use of standard length cemented stems and preserving the diaphysis for re-revision. As disadvantages of the technique: longer surgical time, increased blood loss and the necessity of a bone bank can be mentioned

Introduction. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is rapidly being adopted as the standard procedure for a growing number of shoulder arthropathies. Though short-term outcomes are promising, mid- and long-term follow-ups present a number of complications – among them, humeral stem and glenosphere component loosening. Though not the primary complication, previously reported aseptic loosening required revision in 100% of cases. As the number of patients undergoing RTSA increases, especially in the younger population, it is important for surgeons to identify and utilize prostheses with stable long-term fixation. It has previously been shown in the hip and knee literature that implant migration in the first two years following surgery is predictive of later failure due to loosening in the 5=10-year postoperative window. The purpose of this study is to, for the first time, evaluate the pattern and total magnitude of implant migration in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the gold standard imaging technique radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. Forty patients were prospectively randomized to receive either a cemented or press-fit humeral stem, and a glenosphere secured to the glenoid with either autologous bone graft or 3D printed porous titanium for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Following surgery, participants are imaged using RSA, a calibrated, stereo x-ray technique. Radiographs are acquired at 6 weeks (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Migration of the humeral stem and glenosphere at each time point is compared to baseline. Migration of the prostheses is independently compared between humeral stem fixation groups and glenosphere fixation groups using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons. Results. Follow-ups are ongoing and preliminary results are presented. Significant differences were observed at the 6-month and 1-year time points for superior-inferior translation (p = 0.0067, p = 0.0048), and total three-dimensional translation (p = 0.0011, p = 0.0272) between humeral stems, with press-fit humeral stems subsiding significantly more than cemented stems. Migration between the 6-month and 1-year time points was minimal for both stem fixation groups (less than 0.2 mm). No significant differences were observed along any axis at any time point for the glenosphere fixation groups. Conclusion. There is a trend towards increased subsidence with the use of press-fit stems compared to cemented stems in the first six months postoperatively, as is expected. Both implant fixation techniques demonstrate stability from six months through one year, and this trend is expected through two-year follow-up. Similarly, both glenosphere fixation techniques demonstrate immediate and stable fixation through one year

Introduction. Revision of total knee endoprostheses (TKA) is increasing in number and causes rising healthcare costs. For constrained prostheses, the use of intramedullar femoral stems is standard. However, there is a big variety of available stem types with regard to length, type of fixation (cemented vs. hybrid) and fixation area (diaphyseal vs. metaphyseal). The aim of this biomechanical study was to investigate the primary stability of revision TKA with different stem types and different femoral bone defects, to find out whether smaller or shorter stems may achieve sufficient stability while preserving bone for re-revision. Methods. 30 right human femora were collected, fresh frozen and divided in six groups, matching for age, gender, height, weight and bone density. In group 1–3 a bone defect of AORI type F2a (15mm medial) and in group 4–6 a defect of AORI type F3 (25mm on both sides) was created. In all six groups the same modular femoral surface component (Endo-Model-W, Waldemar Link) was used, combined with different stem types (100/ 160 mm cemented / uncemented / standard/ anatomical with / without cone). Additionally, one trial was set up, omitting the modular stem. The correct fit of the implants was confirmed by fluoroscopy. After embedding, specimens were mechanically loaded 10mm medially and parallel to the mechanical femoral axis with an axial force of 2700N and a torsional moment of 5.6Nm at a flexion angle of 15° with respect to the coupled tibial plateau according to in-vivo gait load for 10,000 cycles (1Hz) in a servohydraulic testing machine (Bionix, MTS). The relative movement between implant, cement and distal femur was recorded using a stereo video system (Aramis3D,gom). An axial pull-out test at 1mm/min was performed after dynamic loading. Results. No clinical or radiological loosening of any configuration was observed. In all cases, relative movements were below 20µm and the differences between groups were very small. There were two cases, the trial without stem and one probe with short cemented stem with poor cementing technique (not included in the group result), which showed greatly increased relative movements. Pull-out test exhibited that forces of short stems with cones and uncemented anatomical cone stems with large defects (groups 4–6) were not significantly different to cemented stems in small defects. Discussion. Despite the high experimental load, even causing bone fracture in two cases, no difference between the investigated stem types concerning primary stability was found, partially probably due to the high inter-individual variations. Possible long-term differences cannot be assessed with in-vitro testing representing direct post-op situation, but the results might partially explain the controversial clinical observations and suggest further investigation on patient specific decisive parameters for implant choice. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodelling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally, the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2–5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, and insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weightbearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%, while survivorship for revision as aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported about similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition, a long-term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the ENDO-Klinik experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%. Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2 – 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6 – 8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal to the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressively larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, insertion of standard cemented stem. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Postoperative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10 year follow up has been reported by the Exeter group being over 90%. While survivorship for revision related to aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long term follow up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients

Constrained implants with intra-medullary fixation are expedient for complex TKA. Constraint is associated with loosening, but can correction of deformity mitigate risk of loosening?. Primary TKA's with a non-linked constrained prosthesis from 2010-2018 were identified. Indications were ligamentous instability or intra-medullary fixation to bypass stress risers. All included fully cemented 30mm stem extensions on tibia and femur. If soft tissue stability was achieved, a posterior stabilized (PS) tibial insert was selected. Pre and post TKA full length radiographs showed. i. hip-knee-ankle angles (HKAA). ii. Kennedy Zone (KZ) where hip to ankle vector crosses knee joint. 77 TKA's in 68 patients, average age 69.3 years (41-89.5) with OA (65%) post-trauma (24.5%) and inflammatory arthropathy (10.5%). Pre-op radiographs (62 knees) showed varus in 37.0%. (HKAA: 4. o. -29. o. ), valgus in 59.6% (HKAA range 8. o. -41. o. ) and 2 knees in neutral. 13 cases deceased within 2 years were excluded. Six with 2 year follow up pending have not been revised. Mean follow-up is 6.1 yrs (2.4-11.9yrs). Long post-op radiographs showed 34 (57.6%) in central KZ (HKKA 180. o. +/- 2. o. ). . Thirteen (22.0%) were in mechanical varus (HKAA 3. o. -15. o. ) and 12 (20.3%) in mechanical valgus: HKAA (171. o. -178. o. ). Three failed with infection; 2 after ORIF and one with BMI>50. The greatest post op varus suffered peri-prosthetic fracture. There was no aseptic loosening or instability. Only full-length radiographs accurately measure alignment and very few similar studies exist. No cases failed by loosening or instability, but PPF followed persistent malalignment. Infection complicated prior ORIF and elevated BMI. This does not endorse indiscriminate use of mechanically constrained knee prostheses. Lower demand patients with complex arthropathy, especially severe deformity, benefit from fully cemented, non-linked constrained prostheses, with intra-medullary fixation. Hinges are not necessarily indicated, and rotational constraint does not lead to loosening

The philosophy of cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral components has become polarised. At one extreme are polished, collarless, tapered devices that are expected to subside; at the other extreme are roughened, non-tapered implants with a collar designed not to subside. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) allows the accurate measurement of implant movement and has been extensively used for measurement of the in vivo migration of implants. The degree of migration as measured by RSA during the first years after surgery has been shown to correlate with the long-term performance of cemented femoral implants. The purpose of this study was to review the two-year RSA results of two different designs of primary cemented THA stems. Data from two previous prospective RSA trials with two-year follow-up were pooled. The first group included 36 patients who received a Spectron (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, USA) cemented stem. The second group included 13 patients who received an Exeter (Stryker, Mahwah, USA) cemented stem, and 15 patients who received a CPCS (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, USA) cemented stem. All patients underwent RSA examinations shortly post-operation, at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 years, and 2 years. Migration and rotation of the femoral stems was measured at each time point relative to the post-operative exam, and compared between the two groups. There was no difference in age at surgery (Spectron 78 ± 6 years, Exeter/CPCS 77 ± 5 years, p = 0.43), BMI (Spectron and Exeter/CPCS 28 ± 5 kg/m2, p = 0.92), or percentage of male patients (Spectron 23% male, Exeter/CPCS 21% male) between the implant groups. Subsidence was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) at all time points from three months to two years for the Exeter and CPCS stems (0.94 ± 0.39 mm at two years) compared to the Spectron stem (0.05 ± 0.16 mm at two years). There was no significant difference between the stem types for medial-lateral translation (p = 0.07) or anterior-posterior translation (p = 0.49), or for anterior-posterior tilt (p = 0.15), internal-external rotation (p = 0.89), or varus-valgus rotation (p = 0.05). Implant material, design, and surface finish are all factors in the long-term performance of cemented femoral hip implants. In this study, both femoral stem designs had a magnitude of sub-sidence that was within the limits of what is considered to be safe with respect to long-term performance. The continuous subsidence of the Exeter and CPCS stems is consistent with previous reports in the literature

A cemented stem is certainly a good technique to choose for patients 75 years of age or older. In Europe, cemented stems remain prevalent for all ages. In my experience a patient with a cemented stem is comfortable sooner and the leg is also stronger sooner. Cement technique is the most important factor of a cemented stem and with good technique these stems have shown 30 years of longevity in published follow up studies. Technical points: 1.) Broach only. No reaming. 2.) Maintain hard cancellous bone in the metaphysis. Do not keep weak, loose bone. Brush loose bone away. 3.) Irrigate the femur until the irrigant is clear. Pack it with absorbent gauze (we use Kerlix). 4.) Place a plug and insert cement with a gun and manually pressurise the cement until you feel strong back pressure. 5.) The stem should be press-fit into the cement to force interdigitation of cement into the bone. This means the cement cannot be liquid when the stem is inserted. It must be doughy. 6.) The cement mantle should be 2–3mm circumferentially so pick the correct stem size to permit that. A centraliser will help centralise the tip of the stem in the cement column and prevent the stem being against the edge of the bone which breaks the cement column

The technique involves impaction of cancellous bone into a cavitary femur. If segmental defects are present, the defects can be closed with stainless steel mesh. The technique requires retrograde fill of the femoral cavity with cancellous chips of appropriate size to create a new endomedullary canal. By using a set of trial impactors that are slightly larger than the real implants the cancellous bone is impacted into the tube. Subsequent proximal impaction of bone is performed with square tip or half moon impactors. A key part of the technique is to impact the bone tightly into the tube especially around the calcar to provide optimal stability. Finally a polished tapered stem is cemented using almost liquid cement in order to achieve interdigitation of the implant to the cancellous bone. The technique as described is rarely performed today in many centers around the world. In the US, the technique lost its interest because of the lengthy operative times, unacceptable rate of peri-operative and post-operative fractures and most importantly, owing to the success of tapered fluted modular stems. In centers such as Exeter where the technique was popularised, it is rarely performed today as well, as the primary cemented stems used there, rarely require revision. There is ample experience from around the globe, however, with the technique. Much has been learned about the best size and choice of cancellous graft, force of impaction, surface finish of the cemented stem, importance of stem length, and the limitations and complications of the technique. There are also good histology data that demonstrate successful vascularization and incorporation of the impacted cancellous bone chips and host bone. Our experience at the clinic was excellent with the technique as reported in CORR in 2003 by M Cabanela. The results at mid-term demonstrated minimal subsidence and good graft incorporation. Six of 54 hips, however, had a post-operative distal femoral fracture requiring ORIF. The use of longer cemented stems may decrease the risk of distal fracture and was subsequently reported by the author after reviewing a case series from Exeter. Today, I perform this technique once or twice per year. It is an option in the younger patient, where bone restoration is desired. Usually in a Paprosky Type IV femur, where a closed tube can be recreated and the proximal bone is reasonable. If the proximal bone is of poor quality, then I prefer to perform a transfemoral osteotomy, and perform an allograft prosthetic composite instead of impaction grafting, and wrap the proximal bone around the structural allograft. I prefer this technique as I can maintain the soft tissues over the bone and avoid the stripping that would be required to reinforce the bone with struts or mesh. Another indication for its use in the primary setting is in the patient with fibrous dysplasia