Introduction. Stryde® lengthening nail has been recently withdrawn because of concerns about osteolysis and other bone lesions that have been observed early after implantation. The present study analyses the incidence and features of these bone lesions in our patients. Materials and Methods. This is a retrospective review of a series of patients from two centres specializing in limb reconstruction. Inclusion criteria was a history of surgery with Stryde® lengthening nail with more than one year follow-up available. All postoperative x-rays were and clinical notes were reviewed. Results. 36 patients with 75 bone segments were included. 11 (30.5%) patients and 32 (42.6%) bone segments were without any lesion. In 3 (8.3%) patients and 3 (4%) segments, osteolytic lesions only were noticed. 11(30.5%) patients and 14 (18.6%) segments had combined lytic lesions and periosteal reaction or cortical thickening. 12 (33.3%) patients and 26 (34.6%) segments developed only periosteal reaction or cortical thickening. 54.8% of patients with bilateral nailing had bilateral lesions. 52% of the patients with bone lesions reported late onset of pain after the completion of the lengthening. The average earliest interval that any of the lesions was noticed was 10.2 months post-surgery. Conclusions. Patients with Stryde® nails should be monitored clinically and radiologically at regular intervals until removal. The early failure and withdrawal of Precise Stryde® nail, is a significant event in the field of limb reconstruction; this study adds useful data to the growing pool of published data related to the this event

Salmonella osteomyelitis occurs infrequently in children without a sickle cell disease, and its subacute form is rare. Diagnosis is often delayed because its slow onset, intermittent pain and it can be confused with bone tumors. An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was admitted from another center in order to discard bone tumor in proximal tibia, with compatible radiologic findings. There was no history of trauma or previous illness. Twenty days ago, he had flu symptoms and myalgia. On the physical examination the child was feverless, showed increased heat over his left knee, considerable effusion and painful restriction of movement. Inflammatory laboratory results revealed erythrocyte sedimentation rate 46mm/h and C-Reactive protein, 11,2 mg/L. Radiographs revealed a lytic lesion localized in the proximal metaphysis and epiphysis. The MRI showed an area of edema around the lytic lesion and surrounding soft tissues. Images supported the diagnosis of subacute osteomyelitis, (Brodie abscess). Empirically, intravenous cefuroxime was started. Forty-eight hours post admission, the patient underwent abscess surgical debridement, washout and cavity curettage. Samples were sent for cytology, culture and sensitivity and acid fast bacilli culture and sensitivity. Collection´s count cell was 173.000/ L white cells. Collection´s culture revealed Salmonella B sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Stool culture did not yield any growth. Intravenous cefuroxime was administered during 10 days. The patient responded well as evidenced by clinical and laboratory improvement He was discharged with his left leg immobilized in a cast during 1 month and treatment was completed with oral ciprofloxacin 500mg /12 h during 2 months. The patient had full range of knee motion after 2 months. Last reviewed, after two years of the income, he was completed recovered, and the radiograph showed bone healing without physeal neither damage nor limb leg discrepancy. The most effective therapy of a confirmed salmonella osteomyelitis is a combination of radical operative intervention and targeted intravenous antibiotics as in our case. Faced with a subacute osteomyelitis, we have to remember that it may mimic bone tumors. We highlight the isolation of Salmonella B in a patient without sickle cell disease

Chronic calcaneal osteomyelitis is a rare and not usually part of the initial differential diagnosis of pseudotumoral calcaneal lesions. Presentation of surgical and functional outcomes of a case of a total calcanectomy. This can be seen as a foot rescue alternative in patients with chronic calcaneal osteomyelitis. We present the case of a 60 year- old patient with complaints of diffuse and intermittent pain in the left heel with 3 years of evolution. Radiographically, lytic lesion image sclerotic edges that covers the entire calcaneus, with preservation of cortical. MRI shows holo-calcaneal lesions compatible with tumor, infectious or inflammatory lesion. A biopsy is inconclusive. Negative microbiology results. Regular analytical study. It was decided to conduct a total calcanectomy. Procedure took place without complications. Patient still skin healing phase, without any pain complaint. It presents iconographic material made if and procedure. The total calcanectomy is an alternative procedure to transtibial amputation in patients with chronic calcaneal osteomyelitis

With cementless porous-coated acetabular replacements, extensive bone loss can occur without effecting implant stability. As a result, the surgeon is frequently faced with re-operating on a well-fixed cementless acetabular component with osteolysis and must decide whether or not to remove a well-fixed porous coated socket. A classification system and treatment algorithm has been developed to aid in management decisions regarding re-operation for polyethylene wear and pelvic osteolysis. Cases are classified into one of 3 possible categories depending on the radiographic stability of the porous coated shell and the ability to replace the polyethylene liner. Type I case; stable porous coated shell, liner replaceable; Type II case; socket stable, liner not replaceable;. Type III case; socket loose, not osseointegrated. Treatment Algorithms - Retain well-fixed shell in Type I cases and replace the liner. Debride accessible lytic lesions and graft with allograft chips. Remove the well-fixed shell in Type II case. Assess defect once the shell is removed. Reconstruction based on the bony defect present. The vast majority can be revised with a larger porous coated socket. Remove loose socket in Type III cases. Assess defect and reconstruct based on the defect. There is a greater need for more extensive grafting and the use of reconstruction rings with Type III cases. This treatment algorithm has helped the authors successfully evaluate and treat a large series of patients with polyethylene wear and pelvic osteolysis in association with porous coated acetabular components. The stability of the acetabular component and appropriate knowledge of the implant are important factors that impact surgical management

Reoperation on the acetabular side of the total hip arthroplasty construct because of acetabular liner wear with or without extensive osteolysis is the most common reoperation performed in revision hip surgery today. The options of revision of the component or component retention, liner exchange (cemented or direct reinsertion) and bone grafting represent a classic surgeon dilemma of choices and compromises. CT scanning is helpful in determining the size and location of osteolytic lesions. My preference is to retain the existing shell when possible especially when there are large osteolytic lesions but where structural support is maintained. The advantages of complete revision are easy access to lytic lesions, ability to change component position and the ability to use contemporary designs with optimal bearing surfaces (for wear and dislocation prevention). The disadvantage is bone disruption including pelvic discontinuity with component removal (less so with Explant Systems) and difficult reconstructions due to excessive bone loss from the osteolytic defects (sometimes requiring cup cages). The advantage of component retention is that structural integrity of the pelvis is maintained and in general, a higher quality polyethylene is utilised. For large lesions I use windows to debride and bone graft the lesions. If the locking mechanism is inadequate, cementing a liner, including a constrained liner in some cases, that has been scored in a spider web configuration provides durable results at 5-year follow-up. The downside to liner exchange is potential instability. We immobilise all liner exchange patients postoperatively

Prevention: Many periprosthetic femur fractures may be prevented by: good patient follow-up; timely reoperation of lytic lesions if radiographs suggest fracture risk; prophylactic use of longer stemmed implants or strut grafts to bypass cortical defects at revision surgery. Treatment: Periprosthetic fractures can be treated using an algorithmic approach based on the Vancouver classification system. Fractures of greater or lesser trochanter (Type A): nonoperative treatment if displacement acceptable and if not associated with lysis; operative treatment if displacement unacceptable or associated with progressive lysis. Fractures of distal femur well distal to implant (Type C): treat as any other femur fracture, usually operatively; fixation options: plate/retrograde nails. Fractures around the implant or at its tip (Type B): these fractures almost always require surgery. Nonoperative treatment is associated with high rate of malunion, nonunion, poor results. Treatment is according to fixation status of implant and bone quality. Well-fixed stem (Type B1): ORIF with cable plate and/or strut grafts; or with locking plate and minimally invasive biologic technique. Loose stem (Type B2 and Type B3): revise implant to long stem; usually use uncemented distally-fixed implant; occasionally long cemented stem (avoid cement extrusion). In most cases we favor use of a modular fluted tapered stem which provides axial and rotational stability by fixation distal to the fracture. Principles: obtain fracture stability, implant stability, and optimise conditions for bone healing (use bone grafts, don't strip periosteum)

With cementless porous-coated acetabular replacements, extensive bone loss can occur without affecting implant stability. As a result, the surgeon is frequently faced with re-operating on a well-fixed cementless acetabular component with osteolysis and must decide whether or not to remove a well-fixed porous coated socket. A classification system and treatment algorithm has been developed to aid in management decisions regarding re-operation for polyethylene wear and pelvic osteolysis. Cases are classified into one of 3 possible categories depending on the radiographic stability of the porous coated shell and the ability to replace the polyethylene liner. Type I case; stable porous coated shell, liner replaceable; Type II case; socket stable, liner not replaceable; Type III case; socket loose, not osseointegrated. Relative Contra-indications for Liner Exchange – Type II Case - Malpositioned socket, Severely damaged shell or lock detail (consider cementing shell in place), Poor track record of the implant, Highly crosslinked polyethylene liner of adequate thickness not available, Ongrowth (as opposed to ingrowth) fixation surface. Treatment Algorithm. Type I Case: Retain well-fixed shell in Type I cases and replace the liner. Debride accessible lytic lesions and graft with allograft chips. Type II Case: Remove the well-fixed shell in Type II case. Assess defect once the shell is removed. Reconstruction based on the bony defect present. The vast majority can be revised with a larger porous coated socket. Type III Case: Remove loose socket. Assess defect and reconstruct based on the defect. There is a greater need for more extensive grafting and the use of reconstruction rings with Type III cases. This treatment algorithm has helped the authors successfully evaluate and treat a large series of patients with polyethylene wear and pelvic osteolysis in association with porous coated acetabular components. The stability of the acetabular component and appropriate knowledge of the implant are important factors that impact surgical management

Background. The procedures of total elbow and shoulder replacements increased 6% to 13% annually from 1993 to 2007 with revision-related burden increasing from 4.5% to 7%. The revisions of the shoulder and elbow prostheses due to aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures, infections have led to the use of standard or custom-made implants due to significant bone loss. This study reports our experience in the management of complicated primary and revisions of total shoulder and elbow replacements with significant humeral bone loss and in metabolic diseases of the elbow and shoulder treated with bone resection using The Mosaic Humeral Replacement System. Patients and Materials. A total of 20 patients underwent total elbow or shoulder arthroplasty using the Mosaic Humeral Replacement System (Biomet, UK). The Mosaic system was used in 8 shoulder arthroplasties (Group A) and in 12 elbow arthroplasties (Group B). The underlying pathologis in Group A included 2 malunited proximal humerus fracture, 1 humeral osteomyelitis, 1 shoulder chondrosarcoma, 1 aggressive Gigantic Cell Tumor with prosthetic fracture, 2 metastatic lytic lesion, and 1 failed fixation of non-union proximal humerus. Figure 1 shows Mosaic implant after complex fracture of proximal humerus. Reasons for Mosaic arthroplasty in Group B included 3 humeral component revisions due to periprosthetic fracture, 1 prosthesis breaking-up with fractures, 1 revision of loose Souter Strathclyde prosthesis, 1 loose prosthesis due to infection, 1 highly comminuted elbow fracture, 1 aseptic loosening of humeral component of total elbow replacement, 3 revision of total elbow replacement due loosening and 1 pathological distal humerus fracture due to metastasis. Figure 2&3 shows pre- and post-operative Mosaic implant following complex periprosthetic fracture of distal humerus. Clinical Observation/Discussion. The Mosaic Humeral Replacement System is a complete system for complex revision, salvage/oncology, and complex humeral fractures. It is a completely modular system which can be adapted to different patient anatomies and indications. It has been designed to face several surgical challenges, including reattaching soft tissues, properly tensioning the glenohumeral joint and restoring joint function. It is a cost-effective procedure with the benefits of a custom made humeral component in a standard tray. Our study shows that good results can be achieved with this form of treatment. Radiological assessment of all patients showed a satisfactory position of the implant with appropriate margin of bony resection. One patient with proximal and another one with distal humeral Mosaic replacement had late infection. One patient had aseptic loosening 3 years after distal humeral replacement. Most of the patients had satisfactory improvement in range of movement and chronic pain. While primary clinical observations and imaging results indicate acceptable results with Mosaic arthroplasty; a realistic assessment can only be achieved in long-term using the appropriate outcome measures. At the present we continue to regularly assess the patients clinically and radiologically and by means of Liverpool elbow score for distal and Quick- DASH for proximal Mosaic Humeral Replacement System and plan to report the long-term results in due time