Over the past several decades, cementless femoral fixation for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) has become more common in North America. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all primary THAs completed in the United States are cementless. In the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, the use of cementless fixation has increased from 51.3% in 2003 to 63.3% in 2015. During the same time period, cemented fixation declined from 13.9% to 3.7%, but hybrid fixation was relatively stable at about 33%. This is likely related to the fact that multiple institutional and national registries have shown a higher rate of intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures with the use of cementless femoral components in certain patient populations. Those risk factors include patients greater than 65 years of age, female patients, and those with significant osteoporosis and Dorr C canals. However, it is important to note that not all cementless femoral components are similar. In fact, there is great variation in not only the geometry of cementless femoral components, but also in the type and extent of the biologic ingrowth surfaces. Each design has unique advantages and disadvantages. While some cementless femoral components are indicated for the general population, some are more specific and tailored to complex primary THAs (such as developmental dysplasia of the hip or post-traumatic arthritis with intra-operative concern for femoral version and thus hip stability) or revision procedures where distal fixation is needed (such as those with periprosthetic fractures or lack of proximal metaphyseal bony support). In 2000, Berry first described the evolution of cementless femoral components based upon distinct geometries that govern where fixation is obtained. This was modified in 2011 by Khanuja et al. to include six general types of cementless femoral components based upon shape. These include the following: Type 1: Single wedge; Type 2: Double edge with metaphyseal filling; Type 3: Tapered - A: Tapered round, B: Tapered spline/cone, C: Tapered rectangle; Type 4: Cylindrical fully coated; Type 5: Modular; Type 6: Anatomic. Type 1, 2, and 6 cementless femoral components obtain fixation in the metaphysis, whereas Type 3 stems obtain fixation in the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction. Type 4 stems obtain fixation in the diaphysis. Type 5 stems can obtain fixation in either the metaphysis or the diaphysis. Within each type of stem, specific implant designs have had excellent long-term survivorship, while other specific implant designs have had higher than expected failure rates. Type 1 stems have the most published reports, and most contemporary reports indicate a stem survivorship greater than 95% at 15–20 years. Similar findings have been documented with specific implants from other types of stems when appropriate indications and surgical technique are utilised. Of note, one class of stems that has shown early failures due to adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) is that of dual-modular necks. On the other hand, modular fluted tapered stems continue to produce excellent long-term data in complex primary THAs, as well as difficult revision THAs

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in preoperative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. We have developed a classification of femoral deficiency and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than four centimeters of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than four centimeters of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive

Uncemented femoral components of hip arthroplasty are believed to have a higher risk of subsidence in older patient groups. This has not been conclusively related to a poorer outcome of the arthroplasty over time. Our aim is to measure prevalence of subsidence in uncemented femoral components in a population of patients over 75 years of age and correlate with clinical outcome measures. Patients over 75 years of age from Jan 2002 to Aug 2009 had uncemented THJR at the discretion of the senior surgeon (RF). Pre-operative Charnley Hip Classification and Harris Hip Scores were recorded, as were HHS at 6 weeks and 1 year post-operatively for all patients. Post-operative radiographs were retrospectively reviewed and presence of subsidence quantified at 1 year and subsequent follow-ups. 83 patients had 92 uncemented THJR in the designated time frame. 5 pts were lost to follow-up or died within 12 months after operation leaving 78 patients and 87 hips for assessment. Average pre-op HHS 40.6 (13.1–64.6) and Charnley Classification noted (A 55.4 %: B 30.4%: C 14.1%). 12/87 (13.8%) hips had subsidence > 2mm (2 – 18mm) noted at 1 year radiographs. Average HHS for those with >2mm subsidence was 89.4 (69.7–100; median 93.9) compared to 90.7 (64.7 – 100; median 91.9) for those with < 2mm subsidence. 4 patients underwent revision procedures during follow-up period, all for periprosthetic fracture following falls. In appropriately selected patients over 75 years of age, the presence of subsidence in uncemented femoral components does not seem to result in poorer outcome measures

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. It is estimated that 183,000 total hip replacements were performed in the United States in the year 2000 and that 31,000 of these (17%) were revision procedures. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. A classification of femoral deficiency has been developed and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented. Type I:. Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliable achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs. The surgical technique is straightforward and we continue to use this type of device in the majority of our revision total hip arthroplasties. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type IIIB:. Based on the poor results obtained with a cylindrical, extensively porous coated implant (with 4 of 8 reconstructions failing), our preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Excellent results have been reported with this type of implant and by virtue of its tapered design, excellent initial axial stability can be obtained even in femurs with a very short isthmus. Subsidence has been reported as a potential problem with this type of implant and they can be difficult to insert. However, with the addition of modularity to many systems that employ this concept of fixation, improved stability can be obtained by impaction of the femoral component as far distally as needed while then building up the proximal segment to restore appropriate leg length. Type IV:. The isthmus is completely non-supportive and the femoral canal is widened. Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in pre-operative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision. Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component. Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than 4 cm of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques. Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than 4 cm of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis. Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive. Based on our results, the following reconstructive algorithm is recommended for femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliably achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs and the surgical technique is straightforward. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Type I: Cemented or cementless fixation can be utilised. If cemented fixation is selected, great care must be taken in removing the neo-cortex often encountered to allow for appropriate cement intrusion into the remaining cancellous bone. Type II: In this cohort of patients, successful fixation was achieved using a diaphyseal fitting, extensively porous coated implant. However, as the metaphysis is supportive, a cementless implant that achieves primary fixation in the metaphysis can be utilised. Type IIIA: An extensively coated stem of adequate length is utilised to ensure that more than 4 cm of scratch fit is obtained in the diaphysis. Type IIIB: Our present preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Type IV: Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures (both intra-operatively and post-operatively) have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients

INTRODUCTION. Cementless femoral component designs supplemented with hydroxyapatite (HA) coating have been hypothesised to enhance osseointegration, thereby improving stability and clinical outcomes. We herein offer interim results at 5 years from a prospective, multi-centre study of a femoral stem (SL-PLUS™ Hip Stem Prosthesis), forged from titanium alloy (Ti6Al7Nb) and consisting of a titanium plasma sprayed coating (0.3mm) with an additional 0.05mm layer of HA. METHODS. Investigators at 2 centres enrolled patients between 18–75 years of age who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with this HA-coated stem. The study's primary outcome was the clinical efficacy of the stem, as measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Score calculated out of Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L index score and visual analogue scale (VAS). Its secondary outcomes included a radiographic assessment of implant position and fixation, and overall safety, as measured by intraoperative/early postoperative complications and survivorship calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS. Ninety-three patients (94 hips) were enrolled in the study. At the time of surgery, the study population had a mean age of 60.1 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.4), a mean body mass index of 27.9 kg/m. 2. (SD, 4.75), and 54.8% were female. Indications for surgery include primary osteoarthritis (74.5%), dysplasia (17.5%), femoral head necrosis (6.4%), and other (2.1%). Patients were followed up through 5 years in the ongoing safety and performance analysis. Between preoperative baseline and final follow up, there were notable improvements in the mean scores for all primary clinical outcomes: HHS (51.6 to 91.4, respectively), WOMAC from HOOS (42.6 to 91.0, respectively), mean EQ-5D-3L index score (0.7 to 0.9, respectively), and EQ-5D-3L VAS (54.7 to 80.2, respectively). The majority of patients rated their satisfaction as excellent (84.2% of treated hips), with an additional 14.5% of treated hips being mostly satisfied. Five years after surgery, radiographic findings showed an overall stability of the device, with 100% unchanged stem positions (no movement in varus/valgus or subsidence) and no stem was classified as loose. Intraoperative complications were observed in 3 patients (3.2%), consisting of 2 cases of trochanteric fracture and 1 case of leg lengthening. There were no general early postoperative complications reported in any patient. Two revision surgeries of the study device were reported, both due to infection, resulting in a survivorship of 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 90.3% – 99.4%) at 5 years. CONCLUSION. These results confirm the safety and efficacy of this HA-coated femoral stem at 5 years. All clinical outcomes showed significant improvement between baseline and midterm follow up, with mean HHS in particular meeting the 90-point range considered “excellent.” Additionally, revision rates met the accepted benchmarks for a successful THA device. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Appropriate femoral stem anteversion is an important factor in maintaining stability and maximizing the performance of the bearing after total hip replacement (THR). The anteversion of the native femoral neck has been shown to have a significant effect on the final anteversion of the stem, particularly with a uncemented femoral component. The aim of this study was to quantify the variation in native femoral neck anteversion in a population of patients requiring total hip replacement. Methods. Pre-operatively, 1215 patients received CT scans as part of their routine planning for THR. Within the 3D planning, each patient's native femoral neck anteversion, measured in relation to the posterior condyles of the knee, was determined. Patients were separated into eight groups based upon gender and age. Males and females were divided by those under 55 years of age, those aged 55 to 64, 65 to 74 and those 75 or older. Results. The median anteversion in males was 12.7° (−27.1°–45.5°, IQR 6.0°–19.1°), compared to female anteversion of 16.0° (− 14.0°–54.5°, IQR 9.7°– 22.4°). These gender differences were statistically significant, p < 0.0001. Femoral anteversion in young males (<55) was significantly higher than in older males (>75), p=0.002. This age-related difference approached significance in females, p = 0.06. 14% of patients had extreme anteversion (<0° or >30°). Conclusions. The Native femoral neck anteversion in patients requiring THR is widely variable, with a range of over 80°. Females have more anteverted femurs than males. Femoral anteversion in young males was significantly higher than in older males. This age-related difference approached significance in females. Having an understanding of 3D patient morphology can greatly assist in pre-operative planning of THR, as post-op stem anteversion is likely influenced by the anteversion of the native femoral neck

We present a technique of single posterior longitudinal slot femorotomy. This technique allows the expansion of the metaphyseal-diaphyseal region of the proximal femur facilitating extraction of proximally coated uncemented femoral components while leaving the metaphysis and diaphysis intact. Since 1996 we have performed this technique in 18 revision total hip arthroplasties in 15 patients who had x-ray appearance of bony in-growth/on-growth and where found to have solidly ingrown stems at revision surgery. All were revised to a metaphyseal-fitting uncemented stem. At mean follow-up of 122.4 months, there were significant improvements in both pain and function. All revised stems achieved stable bony fixation. There were no complications due to this technique. No patient developed a limp or thigh pain post-operatively. There have been no re-revisions of the stem. With appropriate patient selection, this simple, reliable, and extensile technique is useful to assist in the extraction of uncemented proximally coated femoral components whether hydroxyapatite-coated or not

Introduction. Cementless Total Knee Replacement (TKR) was introduced to improve the longevity of implant; but has yet to be widely adopted because of reports of higher earlier failures in some series. The cementless TKR design has evolved recently and we have been using cementless component – both femoral and tibial on our patients. The long follow-up for fully TKR has been scarce in the literature. The purpose of this study isto investigate the minimum of ten years clinical and radiographic result of cementless titanium component and cementless tantalum component in primary TKR. Material & method. From 2008 to 2010 317 TKR underwent primary total knee with cementless femoral component titanium based (Zimmer Nexgen) and cementless tantalum component monoblock tibial component, The surgery was performed mainly on younger patients - average age was 48 yrs old ranging from 26 yrs old to 62 yrs old. All surgeries were performed by single surgeon. All patients were followed clinically and radiographically for a minimum of 8 yrs. Mean 7.8 years and range from 7 to 9 years. The underlying diagnosis for majority of the cases were degenerative arthritis in 97 of the cases and rheumatoid arthritis on the 3%. Result. We have revised 6 cases − 3 cases were for sepsis. They were revised in 2 stages. And we also revised 5 cases for loosening of femoral component. The tibial component revision for aseptic loosening or osteolysis for an end point for survivorship was a 100% for the tibia monoblock design. There was no radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening or subsidence, or migration at the time of the latest follow-up for tibia monoblock. On the femoral part we documented 16 cases other than those 4 revision for osteolysis, where limited osteolysis happened in some area of the tibial component but it did not affect stability and those has been followed up for a longer term. There was interesting phenomena in some of those cases where bone growth happened around the anterior cortex where it sealed the component entirely. Knee society scores improved from 51 pre-operatively to 94 pre-operatively on the last clinical visit. We had 32 cases where the patientswere able to regain their full mobility flexion of over 150 degrees. Conclusion. Our data clearly shows that the cementless TKR has excellent result as compared to the cemented with a good survival ship at 10 years. The tantalum tibial component shows an excellent survivorship. The femoral component also present reasonably good result but we still faced a few cases of loosening. The functional outcome for the implant with the surgery was satisfactory. With this result we strongly recommend using the cementless implant in young patients. We believe that cementless tibial is totally safe at this point as well as the femoral cementless prosthesis. However, we expect some improvement with the outcome with the femoral component when using the tantalum

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

The infected joint arthroplasty continues to be a very challenging problem. Its management remains expensive, and places an increasing burden on health care systems. It also leads to a long and difficult course for the patient, and frequently a suboptimal functional outcome. The choice of a particular treatment program will be influenced by a number of factors. These include the acuteness or chronicity of the infection; the infecting organism(s), its antibiotic sensitivity profile and its ability to manufacture glycocalyx; the health of the patient; the fixation of the prosthesis; the available bone stock; and the particular philosophy and training of the surgeon. For most patients, antibiotics alone are not an acceptable method of treatment, and surgery is necessary. The standard of care for established infection is two stage revision with antibiotic loaded cement during the interval period and parental antibiotic therapy for six weeks. Single stage revision may have economic and functional advantages, however. We have devised a protocol that dictates the type of revision to be undertaken based on host, organism and local factors. Our protocol has included single stage revision using antibiotic loaded cement in both THA and TKA. This was only undertaken when sensitive organisms were identified pre-operatively by aspiration and appropriate antibiotics were available to use in cement. Patients with immunocompromise, multiple infecting organisms or recurrent infection were excluded. Patients with extensive bone loss that required allograft reconstruction or where a cementless femoral component was necessary were also excluded. Our algorithm was validated first in the hip and extended to infected TKA in 2004. This protocol has now been applied in over 100 TKA revisions for infection between 2004 and 2009. Our single stage revision rate is now over 25%. We continue to see a lower reinfection rate in these carefully selected patients, with high rates of infection control and satisfaction and better functional and quality of life scores than our two stage revision cases. Whilst our indications are arbitrary and not based on specific biomarkers, we present excellent results for selective single stage exchange. A minimum three year follow-up suggests that these patients have shorter hospital stays, higher satisfaction rates and better knee scores. An ongoing evaluation is in place. One stage revision arthroplasty for infection offers potential clinical and economic advantages in selected patients

Background. The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for two consecutive groups: Group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; Group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and x-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all Group 2 patients be at least two years out from surgery; we compared results from two years and final follow-up. Results. Patient groups matched similarly in age, BMI, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, Group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs. 16% p<0.0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs. 7%, p=0.04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs. 91%, log-rank p=0.0028, Wilcoxon p=0.0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (p=0.05), activity (p=0.02), and pain scores (p=0.03), as well as acetabular component position (p<0.0001), all improved in Group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear related failure in either group. Conclusions. This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices

A study by Harris reported a 40% incidence of femoral and acetabular dysplasia in routine idiopathic osteoarthritic patients. Due to pediatric screening in the United States, today most cases are minimally dysplastic requiring little modification from standard total hip surgical techniques. As the degree of dysplasia increases numerous anatomic distortions are present. These include high hip centers, relative acetabular retroversion, soft bone in the true acetabular area, increased femoral neck anteversion and relative posteriorly positioned greater trochanters, metaphyseal/diaphyseal size mismatch, and small femoral canals. Total hip replacements for these patients have known higher risks for earlier loosening, dislocation, and neurovascular injuries. Use of medialised small uncemented acetabular components placed in the anatomic acetabulum, modular uncemented femoral components, and diaphyseal rotational and shortening osteotomies has become a preferred method of treatment. In 2007, we reported our experience with this technique in 23 cases utilizing a subtrochanteric femoral osteotomy with a 5–14 year follow-up. There were 4 Crowe I, 3 Crowe II, 5 Crowe III, and 11 Crowe IV cases. All osteotomies healed. There were no femoral components revised. In most cases, small (mean 46 mm) hemispherical components were used without bulk allografts in all but 5 early cases. One acetabular component was revised for a recalled component. 3 acetabular liners were revised for wear (2 were very small cups with 4.7 mm poly thickness). Four patients sustained dislocations, with 2 closed and 2 open reductions. There were no neurovascular injuries. The Crowe classification is commonly used to preoperatively classify the degree of dysplasia. However, there are large variations in these anatomic distortions within each class, so it is difficult to preoperatively plan the acetabular component size needed and if one will need to do shortening and/or rotational osteotomy. So the surgeon needs to be prepared for these cases with smaller acetabular components and be prepared to perform a femoral osteotomy

Revision arthroplasty poses many challenges including extensile exposure and difficulty in safe removal of cemented/uncemented femoral component and/or distal cement particularly from a poor bone stock. Extended trochanteric osteotomies are associated with complications including non-union, proximal migration of the trochanter or osteotomised segment, wire breakage and difficulties associated with reattachment of the fragment. We present a technique of trochanter sparing extended anterior femoral osteotomy (AFO) through a modified Hardinge approach in reducing the difficulties associated in conventional and ETO. We assessed the performance of this technique in 23 patients with a maximum follow-up of 10 years. No trochanteric escape or fractures seen in any cases. No proximal migration, subsidence or failure of femoral component seen. Union was seen in all cases. Mean time for union was 3 months. 1 patient developed recurrent dislocations that required constrained liner. Improvement in Harris Hip scores was noted from 13 (pain) and 9 (function) pre-operatively to 39 (pain) and 22 (function) (p<0.05). Extended trochanter sparing AFO allows extensive exposure similar to traditional ETO. It heals reliably without the use of vertical wires, trochanteric plates or grips. The avoidance of abductor mechanism and osteotomy through weakest anterior non weight bearing area of the proximal femur may be a significant advantage

The infected joint arthroplasty continues to be a very challenging problem. Its management remains expensive, and places an increasing burden on health care systems. It also leads to a long and difficult course for the patient, and frequently a suboptimal functional outcome. The choice of a particular treatment program will be influenced by a number of factors. These include the acuteness or chronicity of the infection; the infecting organism(s), its antibiotic sensitivity profile and its ability to manufacture glycocalyx; the health of the patient; the fixation of the prosthesis; the available bone stock; and the particular philosophy and training of the surgeon. For most patients, antibiotics alone are not an acceptable method of treatment, and surgery is necessary. The standard of care for established infection is two-stage revision with antibiotic loaded cement during the interval period and parental antibiotic therapy for six weeks. Single stage revision may have economic and functional advantages however. We have devised a protocol that dictates the type of revision to be undertaken based on host, organism and local factors. Our protocol has included single stage revision using antibiotic loaded cement in both THA and TKA. This was only undertaken when sensitive organisms were identified pre-operatively by aspiration and appropriate antibiotics were available to use in cement. Patients with immunocompromise, multiple infecting organisms or recurrent infection were excluded. Patients with extensive bone loss that required allograft reconstruction or where a cementless femoral component was necessary were also excluded. Our algorithm was validated first in the hip and extended to infected TKA in 2004. This protocol has now been applied in over 100 TKA revisions for infection between 2004 and 2009. Our single stage revision rate is now over 25%. We continue to see a lower reinfection rate in these carefully selected patients, with high rates of infection control and satisfaction and better functional and quality of life scores than our two-stage revision cases. Whilst our indications are arbitrary and not based on specific biomarkers, we present excellent results for selective single stage exchange. A minimum three-year follow-up suggests that these patients have shorter hospital stays, higher satisfaction rates and better knee scores. An ongoing evaluation is in place. One-stage revision arthroplasty for infection offers potential clinical and economic advantages in selected patients

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

Introduction. Patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head are typically younger, more active, and often require high rates of revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. However, outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty in this patient population have been rarely reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report the intermediate-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Materials & Methods. Between November 1994 and December 2009, 187 revision hip arthoplasty were performed in 137 patients who had a diagnosis of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Exclusion criteria included infection, recurrent instability, isolated polyethylene liner exchange, and inadequate follow-up (less than 3 years). The final study cohort of this retrospective review consisted of 72 patients (75 hips) with a mean age of 53.3 years (range, 34 to 76). Components used for the acetabular revision included a cementless porous-coated cup in 58 hips and an acetabular cage in 2 hips. Components used for the femoral revision included a fully grit-blasted tapered stem in 30 hips and a proximally porous-coated modular stem in 9 hips. The mean duration of follow-up was 7 years (range, 3 to 17). Results. Mean Harris hip score improved 49 points preoperatively to 90 points. At the time of final follow-up, 11 hips (14.7%) patients required additional reoperation procedure. Of these, six for aseptic loosening of acetabular cup and/or femoral stem, two for deep infection, one for recurrent dislocation, one for periprosthetic femoral fracture, and one for ceramic head fracture. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with an end point for cup revision for aseptic loosening was 98.4% at 5 years, 93.4% at 10 years, and with an end point for stem revision for aseptic loosening was 100% at 5 years, 97.4% at 10 years (Fig. 1). Conclusions. Unlike the previous report, our study showed lower failure rate of femoral stem after revision hip arthroplasty using modern cementless femoral components in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Aseptic cup loosening or osteolysis is the most common mechanism of failure at the medium-term follow-up following revision hip arthroplasty in these patients group

Cementless femoral components have an excellent track record that includes efficient implantation and long-term survival, thus are the predominant stem utilised in North America. Femoral component stability and resistance to subsidence are critical for osseointegration and clinical success. Implant design, surgical technique, anatomic fit, and patient characteristics, such as bone quality, can all effect initial implant stability and resistance to subsidence. Variability in stem shape and in the anatomy of the proximal femoral metaphysis has been implicated in the failure of some stem designs. Biologic fixation obtained with osseointegration of cementless implants may improve implant longevity in young, active, and obese patients. Lack of intimate fit can lead to clinical complications such as subsidence, aseptic loosening, and peri-prosthetic fracture. Currently, there are several stem designs, all of which aim to achieve maximal femoral stability and minimal subsidence and include: Fit and Fill / Double Taper Proximally Porous Coated Stems; Parallel Sided Taper Wedge or “Blade” Stems; Wagner Style Conical Shape Splined Titanium Stems; Tapered Rectangular Cross-Section Zweymuller Stem; Fully-Porous Coated Stems; Modular Proximal Sleeve Fluted Stem; Anatomic Proximally Porous Coated Stems. The majority of patients with relatively straightforward anatomy can be treated with any of the aforementioned femoral implant types. However, more complicated femoral anatomy frequently requires a particular implant type to maximise stability and promote osseointegration. Stems with femoral deformity in the meta-diaphyseal region may require a shorter stem in order to avoid an osteotomy. Distorted femoral anatomy typically seen in childhood diseases, such as dysplasia, may require a modular proximal sleeve tapered fluted stem or Wagner style cone stem to impart optimal stem anteversion separate from the native femoral neck version. The most severe forms of dysplasia may require a shortening osteotomy and subsequent distal fixation and neck version flexibility, which can be addressed with a modular proximal sleeve fluted or fully porous coated stem. A stovepipe or osteoporotic femur may require a stem that engages more distally such as a conical splined tapered stem, a fully porous coated stem or even a cemented stem to achieve adequate stability. Finally, obese patients are a particular challenge and emerging data suggests that a morphologically based parallel-sided taper wedge stems may confer greater stability and resistance to subsidence in these patients. Ultimately, an appropriate selection algorithm will facilitate an appropriate match of the patient morphology with femoral implant geometry that facilitates stable fixation and osseointegration

Introduction. Primary mechanical fixation and secondary biologic fixation determine the fixation of an uncemented femoral component. An optimized adequacy between the implant design and the proximal femur morphology allows to secure primary fixation. The femoral antetorsion has to be considered in order to reproduce the center of rotation. A so-called «corrected coronal plane » including the center of the femoral head has therefore been defined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the proximal metaphysal volume and to design a straight femoral component adapted to this corrected coronal plane. Materials and Methods. 205 CT-scans (performed in 151 males and 54 females free of hip arthritis) have been analyzed with a three-dimensional reconstruction. The mean age was 68.5 years (35–93). A corrected coronal plane has been defined including the center of the femoral head and the axis of the intramedullary canal. Five levels of sections (at a defined distance from the center of the femoral head) have been selected: 12.5mm, 50mm, 70mm, 90mm and 120mm. Three intramedullary criteria have been studied: volume between the 50mm and the 90mm sections (C1), the medial-lateral distance of the intramedullary canal (C2) at the 50mm, 70mm, and 90mm levels, and the A-P distance (C3) at the 50mm, 70mm, and 90mm levels (respectively C3–50, C3–70, and C3–90). The femoral head diameter, the femoral offset and the canal flare index (CT flare) have also been measured. Results. The mean head diameter was 47.7mm (38–56). The mean femoral offset was 44mm. The mean canal flare index was 4.68 (2.71 to 7.86). Based on the different measurements a femoral component with a range of 10 different sizes has been designed. Discussion. The morphological parameters of the studied population were comparable with published data. Radiological and CT-scan data have already been used in order to design femoral implants. However, these data did not consider the femoral antetorsion. The use of the corrected coronal plane allowed for optimized measurements when compared with previous methods in order to design a femoral component. Conclusion. The original method used in this study was to consider the corrected coronal plane in the design of a femoral component that respects the femoral antetorsion

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are becoming increasingly common and are a major complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA). We report a retrospective review of the outcomes of treatment of 11 periprosthetic fractures after femoral revision using a long stem. Eleven female patients with a mean age of 79.2 years (70 to 91 years) were treated for a Vancouver type B1 fracture between 1998 and 2013. The status of the initial arthroplasty was THA in 5 patients and BHA in 6 patients. The original diagnosis was femoral neck fracture in 5 patients, osteoarthritis in 5 patients, and avascular necrosis of femoral head in 1 patient. Seven patients had had a cemented femoral component and 4 had had a cementless femoral component. The mean numbers of previous surgeries were 3.2 times (2 to 5 times). A previous history of fracture in the same femur was found in 7 hips including 5 femoral neck fractures, 3 periprosthetic fractures. The cause of the latest revision surgery was aseptic loosening in 6 hips, periprosthetic fracture in 3 hips, and infection in 2 hips. The average time to fracture after femoral revision using a long stem was 106.5 months (12 to 240 months). The average follow-up was 58.9 months (8 to 180 months). The fracture pattern was a transverse fracture in 6 hips and an oblique fracture in 5 hips. The type B1 fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation in 9 hips, 6 of which were reinforced with bone grafts. Seven patients were treated with a locking compression plate and cerclage wiring, and 2 patients were treated with a Dall-Miles system. Two other periprosthetic fractures were treated with femoral revision. One was revised because of stem breakage, and the other was a transverse fracture associated with very poor bone quality, which received a femoral revision with a long stem and a locking compression plate. All fractures except one achieved primary union. This failed case had a bone defect at the fracture site, and revision surgery using a cementless long stem and allografts was successful. These finding suggest that a type B1 fracture after revision using a long stem associated with very poor bone quality or bone loss might be considered as a type B3 fracture, and femoral revision might be the treatment of choice