Background. Despite promising results have shown by osteogenic cell-based demineralized bone matrix composites, they need to be optimized for grafts that act as structural frameworks in load-bearing defects. The purpose of this experiment is to determine the effect of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells seeding on partially demineralized laser-perforated structural allografts that have been implanted in critical femoral defects. Materials and Methods. Thirty-two wistar rats were divided into four groups according to the type of structural bone allograft; the first: partially demineralized only (Donly), the second: partially demineralized stem cell seeded (DST), the third: partially demineralized laser-perforated (DLP), and the fourth: partially demineralized laser-perforated and stem cell seeded (DLPST). Trans-cortical holes were achieved in four rows of three holes approximated cylindrical holes 0.5 mm in diameter, with centres 2.5 mm apart. P3 MSCs were used for graft seeding. Histologic and histomorphometric analysis were performed at 12 weeks. Results. DLP grafts had the highest woven bone formation, where most parts of laser pores were completely healed by woven bone. DST and DLPST grafts surfaces had extra vessel-ingrowth-like porosities. Furthermore, in the DLPST grafts, a distinct bone formation at the interfaces was noted. Conclusion. This study indicated that surface changes induced by laser perforation, accelerated angiogenesis induction by MSCs, which resulted in endochondral bone formation at the interface. Despite non-optimal results, stem cells showed a tendency to improve osteochondrogenesis, and the process might have improved, if they could have been supplemented with the proper stipulations

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

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

Despite the increasing availability of bone grafting materials, the regeneration of large bone defects remains a challenge. Especially infection prevention while fostering regeneration is a crucial issue. Therefore, loading of grafting material with antibiotics for direct delivery to the site of need is desired. This study evaluates the concept of local delivery using in vitro and in vivo investigations. We aim at verifying safety and reliability of a perioperative enrichment procedure of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) with gentamicin. DBM (DBMputty, DIZG, Germany) was mixed with antibiotic using a syringe with an integrated mixing propeller (Medmix Systems, Switzerland). Gentamicin, as powder or solution, was mixed with DBM at different concentrations (25 −100 mg/g DBM), release and cytotoxicity was analyzed. For in vivo analysis, sterile drill hole defects (diameter: 6 mm, depth: 15 mm) were created in diaphyseal and metaphyseal bones of sheep (Pobloth et al. 2016). Defects (6 – 8 per group and time point) were filled with DBM or DBM enriched with gentamicin (50 mg/g DBM) or left untreated. After three and nine weeks, defect regeneration was analyzed by µCT and histology. The release experiments revealed a burst release of gentamicin from DBM independent of the used amount, the sampling strategy, or the formulation (powder or solution). Gentamicin was almost completely released after three days in all set-ups. Eluates showed an antimicrobial activity against S. aureus over at least three days. Eluates had no negative effect on viability and alkaline phosphatase activity of osteoblast-like cells (partially published Bormann et al. 2014). µCT and histology of the drill hole defects revealed a reduced bone formation with gentamicin loaded DBM. After nine weeks significantly less mineralized tissue was detectable in metaphyseal defects of the gentamicin group. Histological evaluation revealed new bone formation starting at the edges of the drill holes and growing into the center over time. The amount of DBM decreased over time due to the active removal by osteoclasts while osteoblasts formed new bone. Using this mixing procedure, loading of DBM was fast, reliable and possible during surgical setting. In vitro experiments revealed a burst and almost complete release after three days, antimicrobial activity and good biocompatibility of the eluates. Gentamicin/DBM concentration was in the range of clinically used antibiotic-loaded-cement for prophylaxis and treatment in joint replacement (Jiranek et al. 2006). The delayed healing seen in vivo was unexpected due to the good biocompatibility found in vitro. A reduced healing was also seen in spinal fusion where DBM was mixed with vancomycin (Shields et al. 2017), whereas DBM with gentamicin or DBM/bioactive glass with tobramycin had no negative effect on osteoinductivity or femur defect healing, respectively (Lewis et al. 2010, Shields et al. 2016). In conclusion, loading of DBM with gentamicin showed a proper antibiotic delivery over several days, covering the critical phase shortly after surgery. Due to the faster and complete release of the antibiotic compared to antibiotic loaded cement, the amount of antibiotic should be much lower in the DBM compared to cement

Purpose. In revision hip surgery, Type IIIB femurs have presented the greatest historical challenge to achieving stable fixation and osseous integration. This study evaluated the intermediate term outcome of a modular, tapered, distal fixation revision femoral component used in a consecutive revision hip series with special attention to its performance in the defective Type IIIB femur. Methods. Between February 2002 and January 2005, 51 consecutive revision hip arthroplasties were performed using modular, tapered, distal fixation femoral components. The femoral defects at the time of revision surgery were classified using a system previously described by Paprosky. The most recent radiographs were reviewed and clinic notes examined to assess femoral component stability. Results. At a minimum of 4.2 years and a mean of 5.8 years follow-up, 2 patients were lost to follow-up. Revision cases classified by the Paprosky femoral defect classification system included 14 Type IIIB hips (28%). All hips reviewed (100%) had radiographic evidence of bony ingrowth. No stem migrated more than 2mm. There were no failures at the modular junction and no component disassociation.??Conclusion: A modular, tapered distal fixation femoral component had a 100% survival rate at mean 5.8 year follow-up after revision surgery. All femoral components showed successful osseous-integration. The ability with modularity to independently place the diaphyseal segment of a femoral component in the best remaining femoral host bone may have provided the greatest opportunity for osseous-integration. In this consecutive revision hip series there was no instance of modular junction fracture or component related failure in cases with minimal or no proximal bone support

Introduction. Within the reconstruction of unicondylar femoral bone defects with morselized bone grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a stem extension appears to be critical to obtain adequate mechanical stability. Whether the stability is still secured by this reconstruction technique in bicondylar defects has not been assessed. Long, rigid stem extensions have been advocated to maximize the stability in revision TKAs. The disadvantage of relatively stiff stem extensions is that bone resorption is promoted due to stress shielding. Therefore, we developed a relatively thin intramedullary stem which allowed for axial sliding movements of the articulating part relative to the intramedullary stem. The hypothesis behind the design is that compressive contact forces are directly transmitted to the distal femoral bone, whereas adequate stability is provided by the sliding intramedullary stem. A prototype was made of this new knee revision design and applied to the reconstruction of uncontained bicondylar femoral bone defects. Materials and Methods. Five synthetic distal femora with a bicondylar defect were reconstructed with impacted bone grafting (IBG) and this new knee revision design. A custom-made screw connection between the stem and the intercondylar box was designed to lock or initiate the sliding mechanism, another screw (dis)connected the stem. A cyclically axial load of 500 N was applied to the prosthetic condyles to assess the stability of the reconstruction. Radiostereometry was used to determine the migrations of the femoral component with a rigidly connected stem, a sliding stem and no stem extension. Results. We found a stable reconstruction of the bicondylar femoral defects with IBG in case of a rigidly connected stem. After disconnecting the stem, the femoral component showed substantially more migrations. With a sliding stem rotational migrations were similar to those of a rigidly connected stem. However, the sliding stem allowed proximal migration of the condylar component, thereby compressing the IBG. Discussion. A stable reconstruction of uncontained bicondylar femoral defects could be created with IBG and a TKA with a thin stem extension. It appeared that the presence of a functional stem extension was important for the stability of the bicondylar reconstruction. In an effort to reduce stress shielding, we developed a sliding stem mechanism. This sliding stem provided adequate stability, while compressive contact forces are still transmitted to the distal femoral bone. Clinical studies have to confirm that our sliding stem mechanism leads to long term bone maintenance after revision TKAs

Stems provide short- and long-term stability to the femoral and tibial components. Poorer epiphyseal and metaphyseal bone quality will require sharing or offloading the femoral and tibial component interfaces with a stem. One needs to use stem technique most appropriate for each individual case because of variable anatomy and bone loss situations. The conflict with trying to obtain stability via the stem is that most stems are cylindrical but femoral and tibial metaphyseal/diaphyseal areas are conical in shape. Viable stem options include fully cemented short and long stems, uncemented long stems, offset uncemented stems, and a hybrid application of a cemented proximal end of longer uncemented diaphyseal engaging stems. Stems are not without their risk. The more the load is transferred to the cortex, the greater the risk of proximal interface stress shielding. A long uncemented stem has similar stress shielding as a short cemented stem. Long diaphyseal engaging stems that are cemented or uncemented have the potential to have end of stem pain, especially if more diaphyseal reaming is done to obtain greater cortical contact. A conical shaped long stem can provide more stability than a long cylindrical stem and avoid diaphyseal reaming. Use of long stems may create difficulty in placement of the tibial and femoral components in an optimal position. If the femoral or tibial components do not allow an offset stem insertion, using a long offset stem or short cemented stem is preferred. The amount of metaphyseal bone loss will drive the choice of stem used. Short cemented stems will not have good stability in poor metaphyseal bone without getting the cement out to the cortex. Long cemented stems provide satisfactory survivorship, however, most surgeons avoid cementing long stems due to the difficulty of removal, if a subsequent revision is required. If the metaphyseal bone is excellent, use of a short cemented stem or long uncemented stem can be expected to have good results. Long fully uncemented stems must have independent stability to be effective, or should be proximally cemented as a hybrid technique. Cases with AOI type IIb and III tibial and femoral defects are best managed with use of metaphyseal cones with short cemented stems or long hybrid straight or offset stems. Some studies also suggest that if the cone is very stable, no stem may be required. My preference is to use a short cemented stem or hybrid conical stem in patients with good metaphyseal bone. If significant metaphyseal bone loss is present, I will use a porous cone with either a short cemented stem, hybrid cylindrical or offset stem depending on the primary stability of the cone and whether the femoral or tibial component can be placed in an optimal position in patients with good metaphyseal bone

Osteolysis commonly causes total knee replacement (TKR) failure, often associated with asymptomatic large defects. Detection and size estimation of lytic defects is important for the indications and planning of revision surgery. Our study compares the utility of fluoroscopic-guided plain X-rays and computed topography (CT) in osteolysis detection and volume appreciation. Three cadaveric specimens were imaged at baseline and following the creation of reamed defects (small, medium and large approximately = 1, 5 & 10 cm3 volume respectively) in the tibia and femur with TKR component implantation at each timepoint. Imaging was with fluoroscopic-guided plain X-rays (Anteroposterior & Lateral [APL], Paired Oblique [OBL]) as well as rapid-acquisition spiral Computed Topography [CT] with a beam-hardening artefact removal algorithm. Three arthroplasty surgeons estimated the size of the lesion, if present, and confidence (none=0, fair=1, excellent=2) in their assessment on randomly presented images. Each surgeon performed two assessments of each image one month apart. The accuracy of detecting lesions was determined using the area under the receiver-operating curve (AU-ROC) obtained from a logistic regression with adjustment for assessment sequence, observer, knee and bone. Volume appreciation and assessor confidence were determined using Kappa and the mean average of confidence scores respectively. The AU-ROC using combinations of either APL/OBL/CT (0.83) or OBL/CT (0.83) resulted in superior detection of lesions (p<0.05) compared to APL (0.75) or OBL alone (0.77). Correct volume appreciation was highest with APL/OBL/CT (kappa=0.52), followed by APL/OBL (0.51) and was superior (p<0.05) to APL (0.29) or CT alone (0.31). Small and medium defects were more often missed than large with all modalities (20.3 vs. 39.7 %). Femoral defects were missed more often than tibial defects (40% vs. 28.7%) and small lesions missed more with CT (50%) versus APL (48%) and Oblique (40%). CT missed 19% of large sized defects, attributed mostly to femoral (29.1%) rather than tibial defects (8.3%). Greater confidence was derived from use of CT (1.29) and APL (1.19) [Interquartile range (IQR) 1,2] when compared to OBL (.98, IQR 1,1) [p<.01]. Also, there was greater confidence regarding judgement of tibial defects (1.25, IQR 1,2) compared with femoral defects (1.05, IQR 1,1) [p<.01]. Combining all imaging modalities was synergistic and the most sensitive and specific means of defect detection and volume appreciation. CT provided more confidence, superior detection and volume appreciation when used in combination with APL/OBL versus APL/OBL alone. There is also additional value when APL is combined with OBL

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, 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. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, 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

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned, one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction, more recently, at our institution, we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with a monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with a endofemoral approach. In this approach the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

We maintain a database on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an endpoint, 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. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, 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 inch stems 13.5 mm 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

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, 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. 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 endpoint, 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 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 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 goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Revision of the failed femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty can be challenging. Multiple reconstructive options are available and the operation itself can be particularly difficult and thus meticulous preoperative planning is required to pick the right “tool” for the case at hand. The Paprosky Femoral Classification is useful as it helps the surgeon determine what bone stock is available for fixation and hence, which type of femoral reconstruction is most appropriate. Monoblock, fully porous coated diaphyseal engaging femoral components are the “work-horse” of femoral revision. This type of a stem is used in my practice for Type 1–3a femoral defects. These stems are not used, however, in the following situations: The canal diameter is greater than 18mm; There is less than 4cm available for distal fixation in the isthmus; There is proximal femoral remodeling into retroversion. While many surgeons often believe that revision femoral components need to be “long”, they really only need to be long enough to engage 4cm of intact femoral isthmus, which is oftentimes the shortest, “primary length” fully porous coated stem. Advantages of using a shorter revision stem include: Easier surgical technique as you avoid the femoral bow, with a lower risk of fracture and under-sizing; Preserves bone stock for future revisions if required; Easier to remove if required

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects. Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In two studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a matched cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems. As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction. Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently, at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems. Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice. Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done through an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this system more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem. In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution, we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Introduction. As the proximal femoral bone is generally compromised in failed total hip arthroplasty, achievement of solid fixation with a new component can be technically demanding. Clinical studies have demonstrated good medium-term results after revision total hip arthroplasty using modular fluted and tapered distal fixation stems, but, to our knowledge, long-term outcomes have been rarely reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report the minimum ten-year results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular fluted and tapered distal fixation stem. Materials & Methods. We analyzed 40 revision THAs performed in using a modular fluted and tapered distal fixation stem (Fig. 1) between December 1998 and February 2004. There were 11 men (12 hips) and 28 women (28 hips) with a mean age of 59 years (range, 38 to 79 years) at the time of revision THA. According to the Paprosky classification of femoral defects, 5 were Type II, 24 were Type IIIA, and 11 were Type IIIB. An extended trochanteric osteotomy was carried out in 21 (52%) of the 40 hips. Patients were followed for a mean of 11.7 years (range, 10 to 15 years). Results. The mean Harris hip score improved from 41 points preoperatively to 85 points at the time of the latest follow-up. A total of 4 hips required additional surgery. One hip had two-stage reconstruction due to deep infection, one had liner and head exchange for ceramic head fracture, one had isolated cup re-revision for aseptic loosening, and one had constrained component revision for recurrent dislocation. No repeat revision was performed due to aseptic loosening of femoral stem. There was no stem fracture at the modular junction. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with an end point of stem re-revision for any reason was 98.1% at 11.7 years (Fig. 2), and, for aseptic stem loosening, the best-case scenario was 100% and the worst-case scenario was 91.9% at 11.7 years (Fig. 3). Conclusions. A modular fluted and tapered distal fixation stem continued to provide a reliable fixation at a minimum ten years after revision THA and can therefore be recommended as a promising option for challenging revision situations with femoral bone defects

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

Introduction. The reconstructive hip surgeon is commonly faced with complex cases where severe bone loss makes conventional revision techniques difficult or impossible. This problem is likely to increase in future, as there is a good correlation between the degree of bone loss seen and number of previous total hip operations. In such situations, one alternative is the use impaction allografting with cement. This has captured the attention of the orthopaedic community because of its potential for reconstituting femoral bone stock. History. The first clinical reports of impaction allografting on the femoral side were in relation to revision with cementless stems. The use of morselised bone with cement on the femoral side was first reported by the Exeter group. Biology. The great enthusiasm with which this technique has been received is related to its biological potential to increase bone stock. The rapid revascularization, incorporation and remodelling of morselised compacted cancellous allograft differs dramatically from structural allografting where bone ingrowth usually is limited to 2–3 mm. Histological evidence for bony reconstitution has been presented from postmortem retrievals, and from biopsies at the time of trochanteric wire removal. Impaction allografting, performed with great attention to detail using appropriate equipment, represents an exciting reconstructive solution for contained femoral defects. Its role in larger and combined defects remains open to scrutiny. A number of technical issues with regards to allograft preparation and prosthetic design have been resolved over the past decade. The necessary intra-operative precautions are now appreciated, and the high complication rates seen in some centers have been explained in simple terms. Careful observation and cautious optimism are necessary as further refinements may well improve the predictability of the clinical results and expand the indications for this important addition to the armamentarium of the revision surgeon. The technique of impaction allografting of the femur has great potential, and is here to stay as a reconstructive solution to the deficient proximal femur in revision hip arthroplasty. Although many questions remain unanswered, the capacity for impaction allografting to act as a truly biologic augmentation of the proximal femur makes this technique the modern bridge from revision arthroplasty to reconstructive hip 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

Autogenous bone grafting limitations have motivated the development of Tissue-Engineered (TE) biomaterials that offer an alternative as bone void fillers. However, the lack of a blood supply within implanted constructs may result in avascular necrosis and construct failure. 1. The aim of this project was to investigate the potential of novel TE constructs to promote vascularisation and bone defect repair using two distinct approaches. In Study 1, we investigated the potential of a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) and endothelial cell (EC) co-culture to stimulate pre-vascularisation of biomaterials prior to in vivo implantation. 2. In Study 2, we investigated the potential of TE hypertrophic cartilage to promote the release of angiogenic factors such as VEGF, vascular invasion and subsequent endochondral bone formation in an in vivo model. Collagen-only (Coll), collagen-glycosaminoglycan (CG) and collagen-hydroxyapatite (CHA) scaffolds were fabricated by freeze-drying. 3. , seeded with cells and implanted into critical-sized calvarial and femoral defects in immunocompetent rats. In Study 1, Coll and CG scaffolds were initially seeded with ECs, allowed to form capillary-like networks before the delayed addition of MSCs and continued culture prior to calvarial implantation. In Study 2, CG and CHA scaffolds were seeded with MSCs and cultured under chondrogenic and subsequent hypertrophic conditions to form a cartilage pre-cursor prior to calvarial and femoral implantation in vivo. MicroCT and histomorphometry quantification demonstrated the ability of both systems to support increased bone formation compared to controls. Moreover, the greatest levels of bone formation were observed in the CG groups, notably in those containing cartilage tissue (Study 2). Assessment of the immune response suggests the addition of MSCs promotes the polarisation of macrophages away from inflammation (M1) towards a pro-remodelling phenotype (M2). We have developed distinct collagen-based systems that promote vascularisation and ultimately enhance bone formation, confirming their potential as advanced strategies for bone repair applications