Aim. Studies have shown that retention of antibiotic cement spacer in selected elderly patients with low functional demand represents a viable option for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) treatment. 1,2. . The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy in infection treating among modular taylored preformed and hand-made antibiotic spacers. Our hypothesis is that modular tailored preformed spacer provides a better rate of infection resolution, better radiological and functional outcomes compared to hand-made spacers. Materials and methods. We identified 48 patients treated with antibiotic cement spacer for shoulder chronic infection between 2015 and 2021 in our institution; (13 hand-made spacers and 35 modular tailored preformed spacers). We collected data about comorbidities, associated microorganism, infection resolution, clinical and radiographic evaluation. Results. The mean age at surgery was 63.2 years, (45.8% female − 54.2% male), mean BMI 28.3. The mean time of infection diagnosis after first surgery was 30 months; (31.2% infection after ORIF in proximal humeral fractures, 68.8% PJI after shoulder arthroplasty). The main pathogens were Propionibacterium Acnes (37.5%), Staphylococcus Epidermidis (29.2%), Staphylococcus Aureus (16.7%), negative intraoperative coltures (14.6%), Enterococcus (4.17%), Pseudomonas Aeruginosa (4.17%). The mean time of antibiotic spacer retention was 18 months: 23 patients (47.9%) underwent second stage surgery for prosthesis implantation; 2 removed the spacer because of spacer dislocation, 2 died during follow up; while 21 patients still hold the antibiotic spacer (17 patients in treatment with prefabricated spacers and 4 with self-constructed spacer). The mean value for clinical assessment for patients with modular tailored preformed spacer were: Constant Score 34 – QuickDASH 40 – SST 33 – ASES Score 66 – VAS 2. Patients treated with hand-made spacer registered the following scores: Constant Score 20 – QuickDASH 51 – SST 25 – ASES Score 38 – VAS 6. Two patients presented fracture of the spacer (one hand-made spacer and one tailored preformed). Conclusions. According to our data patients treated with modular tailored preformed antibiotic spacer show better functional outcomes. Patients are more likely to retain the spacer as a permanent implant, avoiding the risks of a second stage surgery in those low-demanding patients, achieving a reasonable satisfying quality of shoulder motion without pain

The vast majority of total hip replacements (THR) implanted today enable modularity by means of a tapered junction; based on the Morse taper design introduced for cutting tools in the 19. th. Century . 1. Morse-type tapers at the head-stem junction provide many benefits, key for a successful surgical outcome such as wider component selection and restoration of better biomechanics . 2. However, moving from mono-block to modular designs has not been without its issues. Fluid ingress and motion at the interface has led to a complex multifactorial degradation mechanism better known as fretting-corrosion . 3. Fretting-corrosion products created at the junction are commonly associated with adverse local tissue reactions . 4. . There is a wide variation in the taper junction of THR differing quite significantly from Morse's original design. Performance of the taper junction has been found to vary with different designs . 5,6. However, there is still a lack of common understanding of what design inputs makes a ‘good’ modular taper interface. The aim of this study was to better understand the links between implant design and fretting-corrosion initially focussing on the role of angular mismatch between male and female taper. A combination of experimental approaches with the aid of computational models to assist understanding has been adopted. A more descriptive understanding between taper design, engagement, motion and fretting-corrosion will be developed. Three different sample designs were created to represent the maximum range of possible angular mismatches seen in clinically available THR modular tapers (Matched: 0.020 ±0.002 °, Proximal: 0.127 ±0.016 °, Distal: −0.090 ±0.002 °). Head-stem components were assembled at 2 kN. Motion and fretting-corrosion at the interface was simulated under incremental uniaxial sinusoidal loading between 0.5–4 kN at 8 intervals of 600 cycles. The different types of motions at the interface was measured using a developed inductance circuit composed of four sensing coils, digital inductance converter chip (LDC1614, Texas Instruments, US) and microcontroller (myRIO, National Instruments, US). Fretting-corrosion was measured using potentiostatic electrochemical techniques with an over potential of +100 mV vs OCP (Ivium, NL). Complimentary finite element (FE) models were created in Ansys (Ansys 19.2, US). Under uniaxial loading, the ‘matched’ modular taper assemblies corroded most and allowed the greatest pistoning motion due to a seating action. ‘Distal’ and ‘proximal’ engaged modular tapers showed reduced corrosion and seating when compare to the ‘matched’ components. However the kinetics of corrosion and motion were interface dependent. It is hypothesized, and complimented by FEA analysis, that lower initial contact stress in the ‘matched’ modular tapers allows for greater subsidence and depassivation of the oxide layer and higher corrosion. ‘Matched’ modular tapers allowed less rotational and toggling motions compared to mismatched tapers, suggesting a reduced mismatch might perform better once the heads have seated over time. Future work involves tests conducted under a surgically relevant impaction force and physiological loading kinematics to develop this descriptive link between taper design, engagement and performance

Introduction. Numerous fixation modalities can be used for various indications, including deformity correction, trauma, infection, and non-union. The Modular Rail System (MRS) is a well-tolerated apparatus that is a viable option for patients who do not want a circular frame or for whom internal fixation is not appropriate due to poor soft tissues/co-morbidities. This case series evaluates the outcomes of the use of the MRS in our centre. Materials and Methods. Cases were identified from a prospectively gathered database. Data were collected including indication for treatment, frame duration, complications and treatment outcome. Eighteen eligible cases were identified (mean age 26, range 8–71). The MRS was sited in the femur in 14 cases, the tibia in three and the fibula in one. In nine cases, a circular frame was sited on the tibia below a femoral MRS. Frames were removed at an average of 20 weeks (range 7–31). Results. Eight complications occurred in six patients including fracture following removal (2), premature union (2), deep infection (1), scar complications (1), pin exchange (1) and non-union (1). 17/18 patients achieved their treatment goal and a satisfactory clinical outcome. Conclusions. We have demonstrated the use of the MRS in both trauma and elective practice and have found it to be well tolerated in our cohort of patients, particularly the paediatric and elderly populations. This case series demonstrates that, with the correct patient selection, the MRS is a versatile adjunct for use in limb reconstruction cases

Tapered fluted grit-blasted modular stems have now become established as a successful method of femoral revision. The success of these stems is predicated on obtaining axial stability by milling the femur to a cone and then inserting the tapered prosthesis into that cone. Torsional stability is gained by flutes that cut into the diaphysis. By having modular proximal segments of different lengths, the leg length, offset, and anteversion can be adjusted after the distal stem is fixed. This maximises the chance for the stem to be driven into the canal to whatever level provides maximum stem stability. Modular fluted tapered stems have the potential benefits of being made of titanium and hence being both bone friendly and also having a modulus of elasticity closer to that of bone. They have a well-established high rate of fixation. Drawbacks include the risk of fracture of modular junctions and tapers, and difficulty of extraction. The indications for the use of these implants vary among surgeons, but the implants are suitable for use in a wide variety of bone loss categories. Non-modular fluted tapered stems also can gain excellent fixation, but are less versatile and in most practices are used for selected simpler revisions. Results from a number of institutions in North America and Europe demonstrate high rates of implant fixation. In a recently published paper from Mayo Clinic, the 10-year survivorship, free of femoral aseptic loosening revision, of a modular fluted tapered stem was 98% and the stem performed well across a wide range of bone deficiencies. The technique of implantation will be described in a video during the presentation

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

The use of cementless acetabular components is currently the gold standard for treatment in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Porous coated cups have a low modulus of elasticity that enhances press-fit and a surface that promotes osseointegration. Monoblock acetabular cups represent a subtype of uncemented cup with the liner moulded into the metal shell, minimizing potential backside wear and eliminating the chance of mal-seating. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiographic performances of a modular cup with that of a monoblock cup, with particular interest in the advent of lucent lines and their correlation with clinical outcomes. In this multi-surgeon, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, 86 patients undergoing unilateral THA were recruited. Participants were randomized to either a porous-coated, modular metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) acetabular component (n=46) or a hydroxyapatite (HA)- and titanium-coated monoblock shell with ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing (n=42). The porous-coated cup had an average pore size of 250 microns with an average volume porosity of 45%, whereas the monoblock shell had an average pore size of 300 microns with an average volume porosity of 48% and a HA coating thickness of 80 nm. There were no baseline demographic differences between both groups regarding sex, age, body mass index (BMI), or American Society of Anaesthesia (ASA) class (p>0.05). All of the sockets were under-reamed by 1 mm. Radiographs and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Hip Score, were available for evaluation at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. A radiolucent distance between the cup and acetabulum of ≥0.5 mm was defined as gap if it was diagnosed from outset or as radiolucency if it had sclerotic edges and was found on progressive x-ray analyses. Thirty-two gaps (69%) were found in the modular cup group and 28 (6%) in the monoblock one (p=0.001). Of the former, 17 filled the gaps whereas 15 turned into a radiolucency at final assessment. Of the latter, only 1 of the gaps turned into a radiolucency at final follow-up (p 0.05) in both groups. Only the porous-coated cup was an independent predictor of lucent lines (OR:0.052, p=0.007). No case underwent revision surgery due to acetabular loosening during the study period. Only 2 cases of squeaking were reported in the CoC monoblock shell. Both porous-coated modular and hydroxyapatite-coated monoblock cups showed successful clinical results at short-term follow-up, however, the former evidenced a significantly higher rate of radiolucent line occurrence, without any association with PROMs. Since these lines indicate the possibility of future cup loosening, longer follow-up and assessment are necessary

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

Introduction. Dual modular hip prostheses were introduced to optimize the individual and intra-surgical adaptation of the implant design to the native anatomics und biomechanics of the hip. The downside of a modular implant design with an additional modular interface is the potential susceptibility to fretting, crevice corrosion and wear [1–2]. The purpose of this study was to characterize the metal ion release of a modular hip implant system with different modular junctions and material combinations in consideration of the corrosive physiological environment. Methods. One design of a dual modular hip prosthesis (Ti6Al4V, Metha®, Aesculap AG, Germany) with a high offset neck adapter (CoCrMo, CCD-angle of 130°, neutral antetorsion) and a monobloc prosthesis (stem size 4) of the same implant type were used to characterize the metal ion release of modular and non-modular hip implants. Stems were embedded in PMMA with 10° adduction and 9° flexion according to ISO 7206-6 and assembled with ceramic (Biolox® delta) or CoCrMo femoral heads (XL-offset) by three light impacts with a hammer. All implant options were tested in four different test fluids: Ringer's solution, bovine calf serum and iron chloride solution (FeCl3-concentration: 10 g/L and 114 g/L). Cyclic axial sinusoidal compressive load (Fmax = 3800 N, peak load level of walking based on in vivo force measurements [3]) was applied for 10 million cycles using a servohydraulic testing machine (MTS MiniBionix 370). The test frequency was continuously varied between 15 Hz (9900 cycles) followed by 1 Hz (100 cycles). The metal ion concentration (cobalt, chromium and titanium) of the test fluids were analysed using ICP-OES and ICP-MS at intervals of 0, 5·105, 2·106 and 10·106 cycles (measuring sensitivity < 1 µg/L). Results. Due to the additional modular interface between stem and neck adapter the total metal ion release of the modular hip endoprosthesis system increased significantly and is comparable to the coupling of a monobloc stem and a CoCrMo femoral head (Fig. 1). The application of ceramic femoral heads reduced the total cobalt and chromium release in the stem-head taper interface of non-modular and modular stems. In comparison between the four test fluids could be observed that lower pH-values and higher FeCl3-concentrations increased the metal ion release (Fig 2). In contrast, the use of bovine calf serum decreased the metal ion release of modular junctions due to the presence of proteins and other organic components. Discussion. For testing hip implants with proximal femoral modularity according to ISO and ASTM standards, sodium chloride solutions are frequently used to determine the fatigue strength and durability of the stem-neck connection. The present study illustrate that the expansion of standard requirements of biomechanical testing and the use of alternative test fluids is necessary to simulate metal ion release by electro-chemical processes. A promising approach is the use of adapted iron-chloride solutions (10 g/L FeCl3, pH 2) to evaluate the susceptibility of modular hip junctions to fretting, crevice and contact corrosion

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. Improper seating during head/stem assembly can lead to unintended micromotion between the femoral head and stem taper—resulting in fretting corrosion and implant failure. There is no consensus—either by manufacturers or by the surgical community—on what head/stem taper assembly method maximizes modular junction stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A 2018 clinical survey found that orthopedic surgeons prefer applying one strike or three, subsequent strikes when assembling head/stem taper. However, it has been suggested that additional strikes may lead to decreased interference. Additionally, the taper surface finish—micro-grooves—has been shown to affect taper interference and may be influenced by assembly method. Objective. The objective of this study was to employ a novel, micro-grooved finite element (FEA) model of the hip taper interface and assess the role of head/stem assembly method—one vs three strikes—on modular taper junction stability. Methods. A two-dimensional, axisymmetric model representative of a CoCrMo femoral head taper and Ti6Al4V stem taper was created using median geometrical measurements taken from over 100 retrieved implants. Surface finish—micro-grooves—of the head/stem taper were modeled using a sinusoidal function with amplitude and period corresponding to median retrieval measurements of micro-groove height and spacing, respectively (“smooth” stem taper: height=2µm, spacing=50µm; “rough” stem taper: height=11µm, spacing=200µm; head taper: height=2µm, spacing=50µm). All models had a 3’ (0.05°), proximal-locked angular mismatch between the tapers. To simulate modular assembly during surgery, multiple dynamic loads (4kN, 8kN, and 12kN) were applied to the femoral head taper as either one or three sequence of strikes. The input load profile (Figure 1) used for both cases was collected from surgeons assembling an experimental setup with a three-dimensional load sensor. Models were assembled and meshed in ABAQUS Standard (v 6.17) using four-node linear hexahedral, reduced integration elements. Friction was modeled between the stem and head taper using surface-to-surface formulation with penalty contact (µ=0.2). A total of 12 implicit, dynamic simulations (3 loads x 2 assembly sequences x 2 stem taper surface finishes) were run, with 2 static simulations at 4kN for evaluating inertial effects. Outcome variables included contact area, contact pressure, equivalent plastic strain, and pull-off force. Results. As expected, increasing assembly load led to increased contact area, pressures, and plasticity for both taper finishes. Rough tapers exhibited less total contact area at each loading level as compared to the smooth taper. Contact pressures were relatively similar across the stem taper finishes, except the 3-strike smooth taper, which exhibited the lowest contact pressures (Figure 2) and pull-off forces. The models assembled with one strike exhibited the greatest contact pressures, pull-off forces, and micro-groove plastic deformation. Conclusion. Employing 1-strike loads led to greater contact areas, pressures, pull-off forces, and plastic deformation of the stem taper micro-grooves as compared to tapers assembled with three strikes. Residual energy may be lost with subsequent assembly strikes, suggesting that one, firm strike maximizes taper assembly mechanics. These models will be used to identify the optimal design factors and impaction method to maximize stability of modular taper junctions. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion preoperatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 modular fixed-bearing, 4 metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 resurfacing onlay, 10 all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 mobile bearing designs; 5 knees failed due to infection, 5 due to wear and/or instability, 10 for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants or failure modes. Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (average age: 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (2–262). The four most common reasons for failure were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (6–123). The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months. In a current study from our center, 184 patients (193 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2015) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Mean age was 63.5 (37–84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19–57) kg/m. 2. , and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0–35) years. Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (42%), arthritic progression (20%) and tibial collapse (14%). At 6.1 years mean follow-up (2–20), 8 knees (4.1%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at most recent evaluation, respectively. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1). Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA

INTRODUCTION. In theory, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is an attractive method for elucidating the mechanics of modular implant junctions, including variations in materials, designs, and modes of loading. However, the credence of any computational model can only be established through validation using experimental data. In this study we examine the validity of such a simulation validated by comparing values of interface motion predicted using FEA with values measured during experimental simulation of stair-climbing. MATERIALS and METHODS. Two finite element models (FEM) of a modular implant assembly were created for use in this study, consisting of a 36mm CoCr femoral head attached to a TiAlV rod with a 14/12 trunnion. Two head materials were modelled: CoCr alloy (118,706 10-noded tetrahedral elements), and alumina ceramic (124,710 10-noded tetrahedral elements). The quasi-static coefficients of friction (µ. s. ) of the CoCr-TiAlV and Ceramic-TiAlV interfaces were calculated from uniaxial assembly (2000N) and dis-assembly experiments performed in a mechanical testing machine (Bionix, MTS). Interface displacements during taper assembly and disassembly were measured using digital image correlation (DIC; Dantec Dynamics). The assembly process was also simulated using the computational model with the friction coefficient set to µ. s. and solved using the Siemens Nastran NX 11.0 Solver. The frictional conditions were then varied iteratively to find the value of µ providing the closest estimate to the experimental value of head displacement during assembly. To validate the FEA model, the relative motion between the head and the trunnion was measured during dynamic loading simulating stair-climbing. Each modular junction was assembled in a drop tower apparatus and then cyclically loaded from 230–4300N at 1 Hz for a total of 2,000 cycles. The applied load was oriented at 25° to the trunnion axis in the frontal plane and 10° in the sagittal plane. The displacement of the head relative to the trunnion during cyclic loading was measured by a three-camera digital image correlation (DIC) system. The same loading conditions were simulated using the FEA model using the optimal value of µ derived from the initial head assembly trials. RESULTS. For both head materials, the predicted values of axial displacement of the head on the trunnion closely approximated the measured values derived from DIC measurements, with differences of −0.17% to +6.5%, respectively. Larger differences were calculated for individual components of motion for the stair climbing activity. However, the predicted magnitude of interface motion was still within 10% of the observed values, ranging from −7% to −5%. CONCLUSIONS. Our simulations closely approximated physical testing using complex loading, coming within 7% of the target values. By generating a validated computational model of a modular junctions with varying head materials, we will be able to simulate additional activities of daily living to determine micromotion and areas of peak pressure and contact stresses generated. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

The femur begins to bow anteriorly at the 200 mm level, but may bow earlier in smaller people. If the stem to be used is less than 200 mm, a straight stem can be used. If the stem is longer than 200 mm, it will perforate the anterior femoral cortex. I know this because I did this on a few occasions more than 20 years ago. To use a long straight stem, there are two techniques. One can either do a diaphyseal osteotomy or one can do a Wagner split (extended trochanteric osteotomy). Both of these will put the knee in some degree of hyperextension, probably insignificant in the elderly, but it may be of significance in the young. In very young people, therefore, it may be preferable to use a bowed stem to avoid this degree of recurvatum. There are two different concepts of loading. Diaphyseal osteotomy implies a proximal loading has been sought. The Wagner split ignores the proximal femur and seeks conical fixation in the diaphysis. There will be very little bone-bone contact between what remains of the attached femur and the detached anterior cortex so that it is important to ensure that the blood supply to the anterior cortex remains intact, preferably by using Wagner's technique, using a quarter-inch osteotome inserted through the vastus to crack the medial cortex. Current modularity is of two types. Distal modularity was attempted many years ago and was never successful. Proximal modularity, as for example, the S-ROM stem, implies various sizes of sleeves fit onto the stem to get a proximal canal fill. In mid-stem modularity, the distal stem wedges into the cone. It has to be driven into where it jams and this can be somewhat unpredictable. For this reason, the solid Wagner stem has been replaced by the mid-stem modular. Once the distal femur is solidly embedded, the proximal body is then selected for height and version. The proximal body is unsupported in the mid-stem modular and initially, few fractures were noted at the taper junction. Cold rolling, shot peening and taper strengthening seem to have solved these problems. There are a variety of types of osteotomy, which can be used for different deformities. With a mid-stem modular system, generally, all that needs to be done is a Wagner-type split and fixation is sought in the mid-diaphysis by conical reaming. No matter what stem is used, distal stability is necessary. This is achieved by flutes, which engage the endosteal cortex. The flutes alone must have sufficient rotational stability to overcome the service loads on the hip of 22 Nm. I divide revision into three categories. In type one, the isthmus is intact, i.e. the bone below the lesser trochanter so that a primary stem can be used. In type two, the isthmus is damaged, i.e. the bone below the lesser trochanter, so a long revision stem is required. In a type three, there is more than 70 mm of missing proximal femur. The Wagner stem may be able to handle this on its own, but most other stems are better supported with a structural allograft cemented to the stem. The reported long term results of mid-stem modular revision implants are good as in most, over 90% survivorship. The introduction of modularity appears to have overcome initial disadvantage of the Wagner stem, i.e. its unpredictability in terms of leg length

Since the advent of total hip arthroplasty (THA), there have been many changes in implant design that have been implemented in an effort to improve the outcome of the procedure and enhance the surgeon's ability to reproducibly perform the procedure. Some of these design features have not stood the test of time. However, the introduction of femoral stem head/neck modularity made possible by the Morse taper has now been a mainstay design feature for over two decades. Modularity at the head-neck junction facilitates intraoperative adjustments. ‘Dual Taper’ modular stems in total hip arthroplasty have interchangeable modular necks with additional modularity at the neck and stem junction. This ‘dual taper’ modular femoral stem design facilitates adjustments of the leg length, the femoral neck version and the offset independent of femoral fixation. This has the potential advantage of optimizing hip biomechanical parameters by accurately reproducing the center of rotation of the hip. More recently, however, there is increasing concern regarding the occurrence of adverse local tissue reactions in patients with taper corrosion, which is emerging as an important reason for failure requiring revision surgery. Although adverse tissue reactions or ‘pseudotumor’ were initially described as a complication of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, the presence of pseudotumor in patients with taper corrosion is thought to result from corrosion at the neck-stem taper junction, secondary to reciprocating movement at the modular junction leading to fretting corrosion in a process described as mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC). Therefore, the focus of this presentation is to summarise clinical challenges in diagnosis and treatment of patients with adverse tissue reactions due to taper corrosion and review up-to-date evidence

Introduction. Corrosion products from modular taper junctions are a potent source of adverse tissue reactions after THR. In an attempt to increase the area of contact and resistance to interface motion in the face of taper mismatches, neck trunnions are often fabricated with threaded surfaces designed to deform upon assembly. However, this may lead to incomplete contact and misalignment of the head on the trunnion, depending upon the geometry and composition of the mating components. In this study we characterized the effect of different femoral head materials on the strength and area of contact of modular taper constructs formed with TiAlV trunnions. Materials and Methods. Three groups of 36mm femoral heads (CoCr, Biolox ceramic; Oxinium) and matching Ti-6Al-4V rods with 12/14 trunnions were selected for use in this study. The surface of each trunnion was coated with a 20nm layer of gold applied by sputter-coating in vacuo. Each head/trunnion pair was placed in an alignment jig and assembled with a peak axial impaction force of 2000N using a drop tower apparatus. After assembly, each taper was disassembled in a custom apparatus mounted in a mechanical testing machine (Bionix. MTS. After separation of the components, the surface of each trunnion was examined with backscattered electron microscopy to reveal the area of disruption of the original gold-coated surface. Images encompassing the entire surface of the trunnion were collected and quantified by image processing. Results. The force required to disassemble the Oxinium and Biolox heads from their mating tapers were 2153±104N and 2200±145N, respectively (p-=0.5359). In contrast, the average disassembly force of the CoCr-TiAlV couples was 47% less (1165±156N, p<0.0001). Direct contact between the trunnion and the femoral head was only present over 3.7±0.3% of the nominal surface area of the modular junctions and was limited to the crests of the threads. Contact area did not vary as a function of head composition (p>0.4). However, there were noticeable differences in terms of the distribution of contact between the head and the trunnion. CoCr heads typically had large spans of noncontact immediately below the apex of the taper and opposite each other at the trunnion base. Biolox heads tended to have complete contact at the apex but only extended down 30% of the taper and intermittently at the base. Oxinium heads had comparable complete contact areas to Biolox at the apex but unlike Biolox and CoCr, a uniform band of contact existed at the base. Conclusions. CoCr heads provided only half the resistance to disassembly of Biolox and Oxinium heads. The total area of direct head-trunnion contact is minimal and is not affected by head composition. The heads studied had characteristic patterns of interface contact. This may be due to variations in the geometry of the bores within each head combined with cocking of the femoral head during seating as the thread peaks are being deformed. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

The author's experience is with a specific type of femoral stem and modular neck both fabricated from Ti alloy. Fracture of this Ti-Ti modular neck is associated with heavy weight, heavy activity, long modular necks and corrosion at the junction of the neck to the stem. Instruments have been designed that can remove the distal fragment of the fractured modular neck in most cases. After the neck is removed, the clinician is faced with the decision to remove the stem or to place another modular neck. At present MicroPort (formerly Wright Medical Technology) the company whose modular neck forms the data for this presentation, suggests that the female part of the taper (that is the part at the top of the stem) should not be reused if a modular neck (fractured or intact) has been removed. Thus the recommendation from the company is that the stem be removed. This recommendation is true across all modular neck – femoral stem combinations particularly for those that have been recalled by the manufacturer. There is no question that the female taper is changed by having had the modular neck implanted. In most cases of fracture there is severe corrosion at the junction of the neck to stem. Thus, reuse of the taper could have problems and it is understandable that the company does not sanction its reuse. On the other hand, removal of a well-fixed ingrown stem is not without morbidity. In several cases, with patient informed consent, I have left the stem and implanted a new modular neck (either CoCr or Ti alloy) in the damaged taper. We are following these patients closely and it is too soon to make recommendations as to the wisdom of this practice. My strong recommendation is to remove the stem and place a new one

Introduction. Hip modular implants provide real advantages to patients and surgeons: the opportunity to restore the natural anatomy, to correct discrepancy is positioning, etc…. Nevertheless, recent publication showed the weakness of these prostheses. A review of the literature on this phenomenon is carried out, and shows that fretting fatigue and fretting wear is often pointed out to explain these issues. Objectives. The goal of this project is to optimise these products, carrying out advanced simulations with criterion that allow to compare the behaviour regarding fretting in the modularity. Methods. Different parameters are considered:. -. Geometric (length, width and height of the neck basis). -. Material (CrCo, TA6V4). -. Tribology (different friction coefficient to simulate different roughness). -. Environmental (load impaction). Several FEA simulations are carried out (Fig 1) in order to assess the sensitivity of these parameters. The choice of the criterion is of course an important point, and 2 main criterions are proposed to compare the designs regarding fretting wear and fretting fatigue. The experiment plan is exploited in order to find the best solutions for next designs. Fatigue tests are also carried out in ISO 7206–6 conditions (fig. 2): failure analyses are conducted and results are compared to simulation. Results and conclusion. To be correctly simulated, a failure of fretting fatigue need to be considered with appropriated criterion: FEA with Smith Watson Topper, a multi axial fatigue criteria, is an efficient way of improving the modularity design. The study also allows us to identify important parameters, like load impaction: it appears that a load too high or too low conducts to non-optimum behaviour. Similarly, simulations shows that a friction coefficient about 0, 4 leads a good behaviour regarding fatigue fretting as well as fatigue wear

The femoral diaphysis presents the best opportunity for fixation during revision THA. Both fully coated cylindrical and modular fluted tapered titanium stems have demonstrated excellent results. Cylindrical stems have demonstrated concerning rates of failure when used in larger, osteopenic canals or in canals with post-isthmal divergent morphologies. Modular stems offer the advantage of separating distal fixation needs from proximal version, leg length, and offset needs via a modular junction. Although early designs demonstrated some breakages at the taper or through thin proximal bodies, newer generation implants have not demonstrated such mechanical concerns. Additionally, the modular junctions do not appear to be having any problems with corrosion. Mid- to long-term data with various designs now support the safety and efficacy of these constructs that can handle a wide variety of challenges during femoral revision. Careful attention to detail is necessary to minimise the risk of subsidence and intra-operative fracture or femoral perforation

Background. Modular component options can assist the surgeon in addressing complex femoral reconstructions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) by allowing for customization of version control and proximal to distal sizing. Tapered stem fixation has a proven excellent track record in revision THA. Early reports by Cherubino et al. (Surg Technol Int 2010) 65 revision THA with an average follow up of 109 months (range, 76–131) demonstrate satisfactory integration in 100% of cases. Rodriguez et al.(J Arthroplasty 2009) report 96% survival in 102 revision THA at nearly 4 years average follow up. We review the early clinical results of a modular tapered femoral revision system. Methods. A query of our practice's arthroplasty registry revealed 60 patients (61 hips) who signed an IRB-approved general research consent allowing retrospective review, and underwent THA performed with the modular femoral revision system between December 2009 and April 2012. There were 35 men (58%) and 25 women (42%). Mean age was 65.1 years (range, 35–94) and BMI was 31.3 kg/m2 (range, 14–53). Procedures were complex primary in 1 hip, conversion in 6 (10%), revision in 32 (53%), and two-staged exchange for infection in 22 (33%). Two-thirds of the procedures included complete acetabular revision (n=40), while 31% (19) involved liner change only and 2 were isolated femoral revisions. Results. At an average follow-up of 1.5 years (maximum: 3.7 years) there have been no revisions or failures of the femoral component. Average Harris hip scores (0 to 100 possible) improved from 44.2 preoperatively to 66.0 at most recent evaluation, while the pain component (0 to 44 possible) improved from 15.8 to 31.2. Complications requiring surgical intervention included intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture in one patient returned to the operating suite same day for open reduction internal fixation, which further required incision and debridement for superficial infection at 1 year postoperative; and two patients with dislocation and fracture of the greater trochanter treated with open reduction, revision of the head and liner, and application of cerclage cables, one of which required removal of a migrated claw 10 months later followed 2 weeks subsequently with incision and debridement for a non-healing wound. Postoperative radiographs were available for review for 59 THA in 58 patients. Analysis of the femoral component revealed satisfactory findings in 50 hips (85%) while 9 had radiographic changes that included bone deficit, osteolysis, or radiolucency in one or more zones. Conclusions. The early results of this modular femoral revision system are promising for the treatment of the deficient femur in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. Patients with radiographic changes are advised to return for regular clinical and radiographic follow-up. Survival of the modular femoral component in this series was 100% at mean follow-up of 1.5 years and up to 3.7 years. While Harris hip clinical and pain scores were somewhat low at most recent evaluation, they were significantly improved over preoperative levels

Introduction. Modular junctions in total hip replacement (THR) have been a primary source of fretting and corrosion which can lead to implant failure. Fretting is a result of unintended micromotion between the femoral head and stem tapers and is suspected to result after improper taper seating during assembly. Two design factors known to influence in-vitro taper assembly mechanics are relative taper alignment—mismatch angle—and the surface finish—micro-grooves. However, these factors have not been systematically evaluated together. Objective. The objective of this study was to employ a novel, micro-grooved finite element (FEA) model of the hip taper interface and assess the role of taper mismatch angle and taper surface finish—smooth and rough—on the modular junction mechanics during assembly. Methods. A two-dimensional, axisymmetric model of a CoCrMo femoral head taper and Ti6Al4V stem taper was created using median measurements taken from over 100 retrieved implants. Micro-grooves on the stem and head taper were modeled using a sinusoidal function with amplitude and period corresponding to median retrieval measurements. To evaluate effects of a “smooth” head taper surface finish, additional models were run with a head taper having a flat edge (no micro-grooves). Lastly, mismatch between the stem and head taper was varied between distal-locked, no mismatch, and proximal-locked. To simulate assembly during surgery, boundary conditions were applied to move the femoral head taper at a constant velocity onto the stem taper until a 4kN reaction load was achieved. Models were assembled and meshed in ABAQUS Standard (v 6.17) using four-node linear hexahedral, reduced integration elements. Contact was modeled between the stem and head taper using surface-to-surface formulation with penalty contact and a coefficient of friction of 0.2. Forty simulations (5 mismatch angles x 2 head taper surface types x 4 stem taper surface finishes) were run. Outcome variables included contact area, contact pressure, equivalent plastic strain, and number of micro-grooves undergoing plasticity. Results. As expected, taper mismatch angle drove the location of contact to the distal or proximal ends. Increasing taper mismatch led to significant decreases in contact area for both micro-grooved and flat head taper models (Figure 1A). Taper mismatch had minimal effects on contact pressure (∼2.15 GPa) with the “rough” head taper surface finish but influenced the range of contact pressures (1.30 – 1.91 GPa) in the “smooth” head taper models (Figure 1B). Stress at the micro-grooves varied depending on the stem taper surface finish (Figure 2). Significant plastic deformation of the micro-grooves was only found in models with the “rough” head taper surface finish. Conclusion. Regardless of the taper surface finish, contact area decreased by 30% – 58% when going from a 3’ – 12’ mismatch. Reduced contact area may significantly influence the long-term stability of the implant. Modeling the taper micro-grooves led to plastic deformation consistent with those found from retrieved implants—indicating the importance of modeling the surface finish of tapers. These models will be used to identify the optimal design factors to maximize stability of the modular taper junctions. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly