Introduction. Modular tapered implants have been suggested as the optimal treatment in patients with severe femoral bone loss undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to describe minimum 2 year follow up of patients treated with modular tapered prostheses for Paprosky type IIIB and IV femoral bone loss in revision THA. Methods. 44 Consecutive patients with Paprosky type IIIB (23) or IV (21) femurs undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty to cementless modular tapered prostheses were studied. Harris Hip Scores were obtained prior to revision on all patients except those presenting with acute implant failure or periprosthetic fracture. 10 Patients were deceased within 2 years of surgery; the remaining 18 were followed for an average of 42 months (range 25-69 months). Clinical outcomes were measured using the Harris Hip Score, and radiographs were assessed for signs of stem loosening or subsidence >4mm. Results. No further revisions were required in patients who were deceased within 2 years. In those with >2 year follow up, there were 4 additional revisions: 1 for infection, 2 for instability, and 1 for periprosthetic fracture. In patients with surviving implants, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 33 (range 11-49) pre-operatively to 77 (range 55-100), and there was no radiographic evidence of loosening or subsidence at time of final follow up. Conclusions. These outcomes support the use of modular tapered implants as a safe and effective option for revision arthroplasty of type IIIB and IV femurs

Background. Revision THA presents significant challenges for the surgeon when the proximal femur is deficient or mechanically unreliable. The aim of this study is to assess the clinical and functional results of the use of tumor enndoprosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur when there is massive bone loss. Patients and Methods. A prospective study was conducted involving 10 cases. The follow up of the cases ranged from 12 months to 30 months with a mean period of an average of 23months. The indications for revision surgery were aseptic loosening in 9 cases and septic loosening in one case Harris hip score was used for pre and postoperative clinical evaluation of the patients. Results. At the latest follow up the Harris Hip scores improved from a preoperative average of 16 (range, 3-47), to a postoperative average of 75.6 (range, 66-94). The complications that we encountered in the study included one case of superficial wound infection, another case developed sciatic nerve palsy postoperatively. No other complications were reported. Conclusion. Revision hip replacement in proximally compromised femurs presents a significant surgical challenge. When there is massive proximal femoral bone loss proximal fitting revision stems do not achieve adequate fixation hence the use of tumor prosthesis is indicated

In osteoporosis treatment, current interventions, including pharmaceutical treatments and exercise protocols, suffer from challenges of guaranteed efficacy for patients and poor patient compliance. Moreover, bone loss continues to be a complicating factor for conditions such as spinal cord injury, prescribed bed-rest, and space flight. A low-cost treatment modality could improve patient compliance. Electrical stimulation has been shown to improve bone mass in animal models of disuse, but there have been no studies of the effects of electrical stimulation on bone in the context of bone loss under hormone deficiency such as in post-menopausal osteoporosis. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of electrical stimulation on changes in bone mass in the ovariectomized rat model of post-menopausal osteoporosis.

All animal protocols were approved by the institutional Animal Research Ethics Board. We developed a custom electrical stimulation device capable of delivering a constant current, 15 Hz sinusoidal signal. We used 30 female Sprague Dawley rats (12–13 weeks old). Half (n=15) were ovariectomized (OVX), and half (n=15) underwent sham OVX surgery (SHAM). Three of each OVX and SHAM animals were sacrificed at baseline. The remaining 24 rats were separated into four equal groups (n=6 per group): OVX electrical stimulation (OVX-stim), OVX no stimulation (OVX-no stim), SHAM electrical stimulation (SHAM-stim), and SHAM no stimulation (SHAM-no stim). While anaesthetized, stimulation groups received transdermal electrical stimulation to the right knee through bilateral skin-mounted electrodes (10 × 10 mm) with electrode gel. The left knee served as a non-stimulated contralateral control. The no-stimulation groups had electrodes placed on the right knee, but not connected. Rats underwent the stim/no-stim procedure for one hour per day for six weeks. Rats were sacrificed (CO2) after six weeks. Femurs and tibias were scanned by microCT focussed on the proximal tibia and distal femur. MicroCT data were analyzed for trabecular bone measures of bone volume fraction (BV/TV), thickness (Tb.Th), and anisotropy, and cortical bone cross-sectional area and second moment of area.

Femurs and tibias from OVX rats had significantly less trabecular bone than SHAM (femur BV/TV = −74.1%, tibia BV/TV = −77.6%). In the distal femur of OVX-stim rats, BV/TV was significantly greater in the stimulated right (11.4%, p < 0 .05) than the non-stimulated contralateral (left). BV/TV in the OVX-stim right femur also tended to be greater than that in the OVX-no-stim right femur, but the difference was not significant (17.7%, p=0.22). There were no differences between stim and no-stim groups for tibial trabecular measures, or cortical bone measures in either the femur or the tibia.

This study presents novel findings that electrical stimulation can partially mitigate bone loss in the OVX rat femur, a model of human post-menopausal bone loss. Further work is needed to explore why there was a differential response of the tibial and femoral bone, and to better understand how bone cells respond to electrical stimulation. The long-term goal of this work is to determine if electrical stimulation could be used as a complementary modality for preventing post-menopausal bone loss.

Failure of the femoral component after a primary or revision THA is commonly associated with some degree of femoral bone loss. Depending on the quantity and quality of the remaining host bone, femoral stem revision can be challenging. Twenty patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss due to prosthetic loosening were treated by Wagner cementless self-locking revision stems with a mean follow up of 24 months (range 18–36 months). The indication of revision surgery was aseptic loosening in 16 patients and septic loosening in 4 cases. At the end of the follow up the mean Harris hip score increased from 35 to 86 points. Definite radiographic evidence of bone regeneration in the bony defects was achieved within 3 months in all patients. Implantation of a Wagner cementless selflocking revision stem provided satisfactory results. The Wagner SL Revision prosthesis, firmly and rotationally stable fixed in the medullary cavity of the healthy bone distal from the original prosthetic bed, with its conical longitudinal ribs and cementless anchorage, bridges the defective prosthetic bed and hereby leads to a condition of relative mechanical stability. With time, there is active ossification in the old prosthetic bed, replacing lost bone

Introduction. The optimal management of severe tibial and/or femoral bone loss in a revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been established. Reconstructive methods include structural or bulk allografts, impaction bone-grafting with or without mesh augmentation, custum prosthetic components, modular metal augmentations of prosthesis and tumor prosthesis. Recently metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) has been proposed as alternative strategy for severe bone loss. Objectives. The purposes of this study were to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty with tantalum cones with a minimum of 5-year follow-up. Methods. From November 2005 to August 2008 a total of 26 porous tantalum metaphyseal cones were used to reconstruct severe tibial and/or femoral bone loss in 18 patients during revision TKA at a single institution. There were 12 females and 6 males with an average age of 73 years (range 55–84) at the time of revision. The mean clinical and radiographic follow-up was 6.3 years (range, 5–8). The reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (5 cases) and deep infection (13 cases). A Two stage procedure was used in all septic cases. According to the Anderson Orthopaedic Reseach Institute (AORI) bone defects classification all femoral and tibial defects were rated 2B and 3 (3 T2b, 9 T3, 3 F2b and 10 F3). A femoral cone was inserted in 6 patients, a tibial cone was inserted in 5, a double cone in 6 (femoral and tibial), and a triple cone in 1 (1 femoral and 2 tibial). A constrained condylar implant (LCCK, Zimmer, Warsaw) was inserted in 6 patients and a rotating hinge knee implants (RHK, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN) in 12 pateints. All patients were prospectively followed for clinical and radiographic evaluation preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, 6 months, one year and yearly thereafter. Results. Knee Society knee scores improved from a mean of 31.3 points before surgery to 76.7 points at latest followup (p < 0.001). Knee Society function scores improved from a mean of 21.7 points before surgery to 65.4 points at latest followup (p < 0.001). The average flexion contracture was 6° and the average flection was 88°. At the time of the latest follow-up the average flexion contraction was 3° and the average flexion was 105°. No radiolucent lines were seen between the cones and the adjacent tibial and femoral bone at the latest follow-up. There was no evidence of loosening or migration of any implant at the time of the final follow-up. There have been two reoperations for recurrent infection (11%). Conclusions. Our experience demonstrates excellent clinical and radiographic mid-term outcomes and confirms that metaphyseal fixation with porous tantalum cones can be achieved. Long-term follow up and comparative studies are necessary

Management of severe bone loss in total knee arthroplasty presents a formidable challenge. This situation may arise in neglected primary knee arthroplasty with large deformities and attritional bone loss, in revision situations where osteolysis and loosening have caused large areas of bone loss and in tumor situations. Another area of large bone loss is frequently seen in periprosthetic fractures. Trabecular metal (TM) with its dodecahedron configuration and modulus of elasticity between cortical and cancellous bone offers an excellent bail out option in the management of these very difficult situations. Severe bone loss in the distal femur and proximal tibia lend themselves to receiving the TM cones. The host bone surfaces need to be prepared to receive these cones using a high speed burr. The cones acts as a filler with an interference fit through which the stemmed implant can be introduced and cemented. All areas of bone void is filled with morselised cancellous bone fragments. We present our experience of 64 TM cones (28 femoral, 36 tibial cones) over a 10-year period and our results and outcomes for the same. We have had to revise only one patient for recurrence of the tumor for which the cone was implanted in the first place. We also describe our technique of using two stacked cones for massive distal femoral bone loss and its outcomes. We found excellent osteointegration and new host bone formation around the TM construct. The purported role of possible resistance to infection in situations using the TM cones is also discussed. In summary we believe that the use of the TM cones offers an excellent alternative to massive allografts, custom and/or tumor implants in the management of massive bone loss situations

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty, one of the major challenge is the management of bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has already been popularised for tumour surgeries. The inherent advantages of PFR over allograft –prosthesis system, which is the other option for addressing severe bone loss include, early weight bearing and avoidance of non-union and disease transmission. Our study explores PFR as a possible solution for the management of complex hip revisions. Thirty consecutive hips (29 patients) that underwent PFR between January 2009 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively for their clinical and radiological outcomes. The Stanmore METS system was used in all these patients. Mean age at the index surgery (PFR) was 72.69 years (range 50–89) with number of previous hip arthroplasties ranging from 1–5. At mean follow up of 32.27 months, there were no peri-prosthetic fractures and no mechanical failure of the implants. Clearance of infection was achieved in 80% of cases. There was 1 early failure due to intra-operative perforation of femoral canal needing further revision and two were revised for deep infection. Instability was noted in 26.7% (8) of the hips, of which, 87.5% (7) needed further revision with constrained sockets. Out of these 8 hips with instability, 5 had pre-operative infection. Deep infection was noted in 20% (6) of the hips, of which, 5 were primarily revised with PFR for septic loosening. However, further surgeries were essential for only 3 patients. One patient has symptomatic aseptic acetabular loosening and 1 had asymptomatic progressive femoral side loosening (lost to follow up). Severe proximal femoral bone loss in complex revision arthroplasties has necessitated the use of PFR prosthesis. Our study supports the fact that PFR is probably a mechanically viable option for complex revisions. Significant numbers of dislocations and infections could be attributed to the poor soft tissue envelope around the hip. Further surgical techniques in the form use of dual mobility cups and silver coated PFR implants need to be explored

The following papers will be discussed during this session: 1) Staph Screening and Treatment Prior to Elective TJA; 2) Unfulfilled Expectations Following TJA Procedures; 3) Thigh Pain in Short Stem Cementless Components in THR; 4) Is the Direct Anterior Approach a Risk Factor for Early Failure?; 5) THA Infection - Results of a 2nd 2-Stage Re-implantation - Clinical Trial of Articulating and Static Spacers; 6) THA Revision - Modular vs. Non Modular Fluted Tapered Stems-Total Femoral Replacement for Femoral Bone Loss - Cage + TM Augment vs. Cup Cage for Acetabular Bone Loss; 7) Do Injections Increase the Risk of Infection Prior to TKA?; 8) Long-Acting Opioid Use Predicts Perioperative Complication in TJA; 9) UKA vs. HTO in Patients Under 55 at 5–7 years; 10) Stemming Tibial Component in TKA Patients with a BMI > 30; 11) The Effect of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty; 12) Oral Antibiotics and Reinfection Following Two-Stage Exchange; 13) Two-Stage Debridement with Prosthetic Retention for Acute TKA Infections; 14) Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict Meaningful Improvement after TKA; 15) Contemporary Rotating Hinge TKA; 16) Liposomal Bupivacaine in TKA; and 17) Noise Generation in Modern TKA: Incidence and Significance

Abductor deficiency after THA can result from proximal femoral bone loss, trochanteric avulsion, muscle destruction associated with infection, pseudotumor, ALTR to metal debris, or other causes. Whiteside has described a transfer of the tensor muscle and anterior gluteus maximus to the greater trochanter for treatment of absent abductors after THA. Transposition of the tensor muscle requires raising an anterior soft tissue flap to the lever of the interval between the tensor muscle and sartorius, which is the same interval used in an anterior approach to the hip. The muscle is transected distally and transposed posteriorly to attach to the proximal femur. This can result in soft tissue redundancy between the posterior tensor muscle and anterior gluteus maximus. This interval is separated and the anterior gluteus maximis also attached to the proximal femur. Relatively large unconstrained (36 mm heads) were not found to be effective in controlling dislocation in patients with abductor deficiency. In our practice, 11 patients with abductor deficiency were treated with Whiteside's tensor muscle transfer and an unconstrained large diameter femoral head. The mean pre-operative abductor strength was 2.2 and improved to 3.2 post-operatively. One patient sustained a dislocation four weeks after surgery which was treated with open reduction. All of the other hips have remained stable. The combination of a large head and tensor muscle transposition may be a viable alternative to use of a fully constrained component in patients with deficient abductors after THA

Revision hip surgery is about simplification. As such, a single revision stem makes sense. The most important advantage of Tapered Conical Revision (TCR) stem is versatility - managing ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). The surgeon and team quickly gain familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently master its use for a variety of situations. This ability to use the stem in a variety of bone loss situations eliminates intraoperative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly underestimated preoperatively or may change intraoperatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably. Paprosky 1 femoral defects can be treated with a primary-type stem for the most part. All other femoral defects can be treated with a TCR stem. Fully porous coated stems also work for many revisions but why have two different revision stem choices available when the TCR stems work for ALL defects?. TCR stems can be modular or monolithic but there are common keys to success. First and foremost, proper exposure is essential to assess bone defects and to safely prepare the femur. An extended osteotomy is often useful. Reaming distally to prepare a cone for fixation of the conical stem is a critical requirement to prevent subsidence (true for all revision stems). Restoration of hip mechanics (offset, leg length and stability) is fundamental to the clinical result. TCR stems have instrumentation and techniques that ensure this happens, since all this occurs AFTER distal stability is achieved. Modular TCR versions have some advantages. The proximal body size and length can be adjusted AFTER stem insertion if the stem goes deeper than the trial. Any proximal/distal bone size mismatch can be accommodated. If the surgeon believes that proximal bone ingrowth is important to facilitate proximal bone remodeling, modular TCR stems can more easily accomplish this. Further, proximal bone contact and osseointegration will protect the modular junction from stress and possible risk of fracture. Monolithic TCR versions also have some advantages. Modular junction mechanical integrity cannot accommodate smaller bone sizes. Shorter stem lengths are not available in modular versions, and shorter TCR stems are an option in many revision cases. The possibility of modular junction corrosion is eliminated and fracture of the stem at that junction, of course, is not possible. The monolithic stem option is less expensive as well. Consider Modular TCR stems in your learning curve, if you feel proximal bone osseointegration is important and if proximal/distal size mismatch is present. Consider Monolithic TCR stems after your learning curve to reduce cost, when a short stem works, and if a small stem is needed. Both Modular and Monolithic stems can be used for ALL cases with equal quality of result

I use monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for many femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been re-revised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

The most important advantage of modular revision stems is versatility - managing ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). The surgeon quickly gains familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently masters its use for all variety of situations. This allows the operating room staff to become comfortable with the instrumentation and components. This ability to use the stem in a variety of bone loss situations eliminates intraoperative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly under-estimated preoperatively or may change intraoperatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably. The most critical advantage is the ability to separate completely the critical task of fixation from other important tasks of restoring offset, leg length, and stability. Once fixation is secured, the surgeon can concentrate on hip stability and on optimization of hip mechanics (leg length and offset). This allows the surgeon to maximise patient functionality postoperatively. Additionally, the surgeon can control the diameter of the proximal body to ensure proper bony apposition, especially if an extended trochanteric osteotomy was made to obtain femoral exposure. The most under-appreciated advantage is the straightforward instrumentation that makes the operation easier for the staff and the surgeon, while enhancing the operating room efficiency and reducing cost. Also, although the implant itself may result in more cost, most modular systems allow for a decrease in inventory requirements, which make up the cost differential

Abductor deficiency after THA can result from proximal femoral bone loss, trochanteric avulsion, muscle destruction associated with infection, pseudotumor, ALTR to metal debris, or other causes. Constrained acetabular components are indicated to control instability after THA with deficient abductors. However, the added implant constraint also results in greater stresses at the modular liner-locking mechanism of the constrained component and bone-implant fixation interface, which can contribute to mechanical failure of the constrained implant or mechanical loosening. Use of large heads has been effective in reducing the rate of dislocation after primary THA. However, relatively large (36mm) heads were not found to be effective in controlling dislocation in patients with abductor deficiency. Dual mobility implants which can provide considerably larger head diameters than 36mm may offer an advantage in improving stability in patients with abductor deficiency. However the utility of these devices in controlling instability after THA with deficient abductors has not been established. Whiteside has described a transfer of the tensor muscle and anterior gluteus maximus to the greater trochanter for treatment of absent abductors after THA. Transposition of the tensor muscle requires raising an anterior soft tissue flap to the lever of the interval between the tensor muscle and sartorius, which is the same interval used in an anterior approach to the hip. The muscle is transected distally and transposed posteriorly to attach to the proximal femur. This can result in soft tissue redundancy between the posterior tensor muscle and anterior gluteus maximus. This interval is separated and the anterior gluteus maximus also attached to the proximal femur. The transposed tensor muscle provides muscle coverage over the greater trochanter, which may be beneficial in controlling lateral hip pain. In our practice, 11 patients were treated with Whiteside's tensor muscle transfer. Six patients had absent abductors, one had an avulsed greater trochanter, and four intact but weak abductors. One patient had a muscle transposition alone, one had an ORIF of the greater trochanter and muscle transposition, two had a muscle transposition and head/liner exchange, three had a muscle transposition and cup revision, two had a femoral revision and liner exchange with muscle transposition, and two had a muscle transposition with both component revision. None of the patients had constrained components. The mean pre-operative abductor strength was 2.2 (0/5 in four patients 3/5 in four patients, and 4/5 in three patients). Pre-operative lateral hip pain was none or mild in two patients, moderate in three, and severe in six patients. Mean post-operative abductor strength was 3.2 (2/5 in four patients, 3/5 in three, 4/5 in two, 5/5 in two patients). Post-operative lateral hip pain was none in five and mild in six patients. One patient sustained a dislocation four weeks after surgery which was treated with open reduction. All of the other hips have remained stable. Treatment of patients with hip instability and abductor deficiency has generally required use of a constrained acetabular component. In our experience, transfer of the tensor muscle and anterior gluteus maximus to the greater trochanter can improve abductor strength by one grade and also reduce lateral hip pain. The combination of a large head and tensor muscle transposition may be a viable alternative to use of a fully constrained component in patients with deficient abductors after THA. However, the need for implant constraint should also be individualised and based on factors such as the viability of the transposed muscle, patient compliance with post-operative activity restrictions, femoral head/neck ratio, and cup position

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

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10-inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

Introduction:. Non-cemented, porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves have been designed to improve biologic fixation and stability in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with major bone defects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results and osteointegration of these sleeves in major bone loss. Materials and Methods:. Between 2008 and 2011, 24 revision TKAs with major bone loss were reconstructed with non-cemented, porous-coated proximal sleeve (DePuy, Warsaw, IN). All patients were prospectively followed for a minimum of 2 years. Indications for use of sleeves were major metaphyseal tibial and femoral bone loss, younger age, and higher activity level. Osteointegration around the sleeves were classified as: . –. Grade 1: Complete osteointegration in all views without any demarcation. –. Grade 2: Sleeves that are not completely osteointegrated but they are stable. Grade 2A: Demarcation less than 2 mm on any view. Grade 2B: Demarcation more than 2 mm on any view . –. Grade 3: Sleeves that are not osteointegrated and unstable with evidence of subsidence. Grade 3A: Subsidence less than 2 mm on any view. Grade 3B: Subsidence more than 2 mm on any view. Results:. Mean range of motion and Knee Society Scores were 108 degrees and 92 respectively. 14 cases were revised for aseptic loosening and 10 cases for infection (which were treated with two stage revision arthroplasty). There was no malalignment, subsidence or re-revision at final follow-up. All sleeves were osteointegrated with majority grade 1 or 2a. Discussion and conclusion:. Short-term results of non-cemented metaphyseal sleeves in major bone loss for loosening of infection demonstrated excellent clinical results and osteointegration

Two-staged revision including removal of all components is a common approach for treatment of infected THA. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stems can result in bone loss and compromised fixation. An alternative in selected cases is partial two-stage exchange, in which the well-fixed femoral stem is left in situ, only the acetabular component is removed, the joint space is debrided thoroughly, a spacer is placed, IV antibiotics are administered during the interval, and delayed reimplantation is performed. We recently reported our results using the technique of partial two-stage exchange of infected THA. From 2000 through January 2011 in 19 patients with infected THA treated with partial two-stage exchange including complete acetabular component removal, aggressive soft tissue debridement, retention of the well-fixed femoral stem, placement of an antibiotic-laden cement femoral head on the trunnion of the retained stem, postoperative course of antibiotics, and delayed reimplantation. Indications for this treatment included those patients whose femoral component was determined to be well fixed and its removal would result in significant femoral bone loss and compromise of future fixation. During the study period, this represented 7% (19 of 262) of the patients whom we treated for a chronically infected THA. Minimum follow-up was 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2–11 years). None of the 19 patients in this series were lost to followup. We defined failure as recurrence of infection in the same hip or use of long-term suppressive antibiotics. Two patients (11%), both with prior failure of two-staged treatment of infection, failed secondary to recurrence of infection at an average of 3.3 years. There were no patient deaths within 90 days. Postoperative Harris hip score averaged 68 (range, 31–100). As 89% of patients in this series were clinically free of infection at a minimum of 2 years, we believe partial two-stage exchange may represent an acceptable option for patients with infected THA when femoral component removal would result in significant bone loss and compromise of reconstruction. Further study is required on this approach

Introduction:. Two-stage revision is a widely accepted and performed intervention for septic total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with an infection eradication rate exceeding 90% in most studies. The ‘2-in-1’ single stage revision has recently been reported to have favourable results. Aim:. To evaluate the early clinical results of single-stage reimplantation of infected TKA using stepped metaphyseal femoral and tibial sleeves. Methods:. From March 2009 to January 2010, 8 patients with a diagnosis of infected total knee arthroplasty were treated with ‘2 in 1’ single-stage reimplantation in our institution. There were 4 men and 4 women with an average age of 71 years. The revision operation was performed in patients presenting with an infected TKA and who had mild to moderate tibial or femoral bone loss. We used extraction of implants, debridement and lavage in the first stage and re-draped patients prior to the second stage which included the definitive implantation. All the patients received intravenous antibiotics for two weeks and oral antibiotics were continued for further 6–12 weeks until the serum CRP & WBC were normal. None of these patients required intra operative bone allografting. Results:. Clinical evaluation at the last follow up showed significant improvement in the knee pain and stiffness score. Radiological evaluation was done using the Knee Society system. None of the knees showed evidence of infection or loosening at the mean follow up of eighteen months. Conclusion:. Metaphyseal femoral and tibial sleeves may enable reconstruction of contained and uncontained bone stock, insertion of a stable implant and control of infection in a single operation in revision TKR for infection. The increased morbidity and cost of a two-stage procedure is thus avoided

Introduction:. Severe bone loss creates a challenge for fixation in femoral revision. The goal of the study was to assess reproducibility of fixation and clinical outcomes of femoral revision with bone loss using a modular, fluted, tapered distally fixing stem. Methods:. 92 consecutive patients (96 hips) underwent hip revision surgery using the same design of a modular, fluted, tapered titanium stem between 1998 and 2005. Fourteen patients with 16 hips died before a 2-year follow-up. Eighty hips were followed for an average of 11.3 years (range of 8 to 13.5 years). Bone loss was classified as per Paprosky's classification, osseointegration assessed according to a modified system of Engh et al, and Harris Hip Score was used to document pain and function. Serial radiographs were reviewed by an independent observer to assess subsidence, osseointegration and bony reconstitution. Results:. The average patient age was 68 years at the time of surgery (range 40 to 91). 80% hips had at least Paprosky type 3A proximal bone loss and 41% had an associated proximal femoral ostoetomy. Pre-operative Harris Hip scores (HHS) averaged 50.368 (range 22 to 72.775) and improved to an average HHS of 87.432 (range 63.450 to 99.825) at last follow-up. The HHS improved an average of 37.103 points (range 13.750 to 58.950). Radiographically, osseointegration was evident in all hips. No hips had measurable migration beyond 5 mm. 61%) hips had evidence of bone reconstitution and 27% demonstrated diaphyseal stress shielding. One well-fixed distal stem was revised for stem fracture, and two proximal segments were revised for recurrent dislocation. Conclusion:. Reproducible fixation and clinical improvement were consistently achieved with this stem design in the setting of femoral bone loss

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the midterm results of cementless revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using Wagner Cone Prosthesis. Material and Methods. Between 1996 and 2007, 36 hips in 36 consecutive patients underwent femoral revision THA using Wagner Cone Prosthesis. Among them 28 hips were followed for more than 5 years. The mean age at revision surgery was 57 years and a mean follow-up was 7.6 years. The Paprosky classification system was used for preoperative bone loss evaluation. Clinical results were evaluated using Harris hip scores. For evaluation of the femoral component, radiolucent lines at bone-implant interfaces were evaluated and femoral component vertical subsidence was measured. Heterotopic bone formation and complications were also evaluated. Results. The mean period from 1. st. operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. For the femoral bone loss, in eleven hips bone grafting was done. For the prevention of femoral stem fracture, femoral wiring was done in 12 hips. In eighteen hips acetabular cup revision was done simultaneously and in 5 hips isolated stem revision was done. The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 to 83 at final follow-up. With respect to radiological results all femoral stems showed bone ingrowths, 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems showed subsidence more than 5 mm. Two patients needed acetabular revision for acetabular loosening during follow up period. There was one patient who complained of anterior thigh pain. One patient had recurrent dislocation and required revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. Conclusions. We achieved favorable midterm clinical and radiological results for femoral stem revisions using Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem can be a good option for femoral stem revision