We aimed to assess whether using long stem femoral components, with cemented distal fixation and proximal impaction grafting allows early patient mobilisation, reconstitution of the proximal femur and long term stability of fixation in patients with aseptic loosening and proximal femoral analysis.

Over the past ten years 239 patients have been treated with an Elite Plus cemented long stem femoral implant, 33% with concomitant proximal impaction bone grafting. Many of the patients had co-morbidities. The average age at revision was 72 years (range 48 to 91). There was a slight female predominance. Fourteen percent of hips had been previously revised. Forty-eight patients were deceased and 22 were not available for follow-up; this left a cohort of 169 patients who were available for radiological and questionnaire review at an average of 4.5 years.

According to the Paprosky grading for pre-operative bone loss 40% had moderate to severe bone loss (grade IIIb or IV). The Barrack grading was used to assess the cement mantle post-operatively with 65% showing good cementation. The Harris and O'Neill grades were used at final review to assess probability of loosening with only 8% being probably or definitely loose. The average Oxford Hip Score was 29. Mesh ± cables were required in a third of cases to allow adequate containment and pressurisation. It was generally felt that the long stem needed to be at least one third longer than the initial component. The re-revision rate was 1.2 with a 10 year survivorship analysis of 94%. The complication rate of almost 6% included periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, infection and mesh breakage.

A long stem cemented femoral implant can be useful in bypassing proximal femoral deficiency in the appropriate patient.

Femoral impaction grafting with cancellous bone and cement is an important technique in reconstituting deficient bone stock in revision hip arthroplasty. We report the medium to long term results of 75 consecutive patients using a collarless, polished, tapered femoral stem with an average age of 68 (±11.4) years and a mean follow up of 10.5 (±2.4) years (range 6.3 to 14.1 years).

The median Endoklinik pre-operative bone defect score was 3 (IQR: 2–3) with a median subsidence at 1 year of 2mm (IQR: 1–3mm). At the most recent follow-up (mean 10.5±2.4 years), the median Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 80.6 (IQR: 67.6–88.9) and median subsidence 2mm (IQR: 1–4mm). Ten-year survivorship with any further femoral operation as an endpoint was 92%. Four prostheses required further revision.

Subsidence of the Exeter stem continued, albeit at a slower rate after the first year and was related to the Endoklinik pre-operative bone loss (p=0.037). The degree of subsidence at 1 year was a strong predictor of long term subsidence (p<0.001). Neither subsidence nor bone stock were related to long term outcome (HHS). There was a correlation between previous revision surgery and a poor Harris Hip Score (p=0.028) and those who had undergone previous revision surgery for infection had a higher risk of complications (p=0.048).

The good long term results of this technique commend its use in revision hip arthroplasty for patients with poor femoral bone stock.

Introduction:

Severe bone loss creates a challenge for fixation in femoral revision. The goal of the study was to assess reproducibility of fixation and clinical outcomes of femoral revision with bone loss using a modular, fluted, tapered distally fixing stem.

Purpose

Two-stage revision with the removal of all prosthesis has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stem is technically challenging and may cause excessive bone loss. The aim of this study was to compare the results between retention and removal of femoral stem when performing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection.

Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) has primarily been recommended for young and active patients, mainly due to its bone preserving philosophy. Elderly patients, however, may also benefit of a minimally invasive technique due to the short and curved implant design. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as perioperative complications of a calcar-guided short stem between a young (75 years) population. Data were collected in a total of 5 centers, and 400 short stems were included as part of a prospective multicentre observational study between 2010 and 2014 with a mean follow-up of 49.2 months. Clinical and radiological outcomes were assessed in both groups. Secondary outcomes such as perioperative complications, rates and reasons for stem revision were also investigated. No differences were found for the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) values of rest pain, load pain, and satisfaction. Harris Hip Score (HHS) was found to be slightly better in the young group. Comparing both groups, no statistically significant differences ere found in the radiological parameters that were assessed (stress-shielding, cortical hypertrophy, radiolucency, osteolysis). Aseptic loosening was the main cause of implant failure in younger patients whereas in elderly patients, postoperative periprosthetic fractures due to accidental fall was found to be the main cause for stem revision. These short-term results are encouraging towards the use of a cementless short stem in the geriatric population. According to our findings, advanced age and potentially reduced bone quality should not necessarily be considered as contra-indications for calcar-guided short-stem THA but careful and reasonable selection of the patients is mandatory. Longer follow up is necessary in order to draw safer conclusions

This is a minimum 15 year follow up of a cohort of 58 patients (30 men and 28 women) who underwent 62 non-cemented THR between 1998–2000 (54 unilateral, 4 bilateral), in whom an off-the-shelf “lateral flare” femoral component was implanted. These surgeries were performed by a single surgeon and have been followed continuously by that same surgeon. The mean age at the time of surgery was 60.4 yrs (52–74). There were no exclusions for osteoporosis or type “C” femoral geometry. Although some patients have deceased during these 15 years, there have been no stem failures, revisions or impending stem revisions at the time of follow up or at the time of death in those who have passed. Two patients have undergone revision of their acetabular liner for poly wear. There have been no complaints of thigh pain; and like the results seen in other series employing this stem design, there has been no evidence of bone loss due to stress shielding or subsidence of the femoral component in any of these patients. This mid-term follow up re-affirms the dynamic tension band model of hip biomechanics, upon which the “lateral flare” design is predicated. This model predicts that the proximal lateral femur can experience compression during the gait cycle and as such can be utilized as an additional base of support upon which the femoral component can rest. Rather than relying upon a traditional “press fit” technique to achieve initial implant stability, a technique which is highly dependent upon femoral geometry, bone quality and may risk fracture on implant seating, the “lateral flare” design permits a gentler, safer and more physiologic means of achieving initial implant stability necessary for osseous integration to occur. This alterantive terchnique has been termed a “rest fit”

There has been an evolution in revision hip arthroplasty towards cementless reconstruction. Whilst cemented arthroplasty works well in the primary setting, the difficulty with achieving cement fixation in femoral revisions has led to a move towards removal of cement, where it was present, and the use of ingrowth components. These have included proximally loading or, more commonly, distally fixed stems. We have been through various iterations of these, notably with extensively porous coated cobalt chrome stems and recently with taper-fluted titanium stems. As a result of this, cemented stems have become much less popular in the revision setting. Allied to concerns about fixation and longevity of cemented fixation revision, there were also worries in relation to bone cement implantation syndrome when large cement loads were pressurised into the femoral canal at the time of stem cementation. This was particularly the case with longer stems. Technical measures are available to reduce that risk but the fear is nevertheless there. In spite of this direction of travel and these concerns, there is, however, still a role for cemented stems in revision hip arthroplasty. This role is indeed expanding. First and foremost, the use of cement allows for local antibiotic delivery using a variety of drugs both instilled in the cement at the time of manufacture or added by the surgeon when the cement is mixed. This has advantages when dealing with periprosthetic infection. Thus, cement can be used both as interval spacers but also for definitive fixation when dealing with periprosthetic hip infection. The reconstitution of bone stock is always attractive, particularly in younger patients or those with stove pipe canals. This is achieved well using impaction grafting with cement and is another extremely good use of cement. In the very elderly or those in whom proximal femoral resection is needed at the time of revision surgery, distal fixation with cement provides a good solution for immediate weight bearing and does not have the high a risk of fracture seen with large cementless stems. Cement is also useful in cases of proximal femoral deformity or where cement has been used in a primary arthroplasty previously. We have learnt that if the cement is well-fixed then the bond of cement-to-cement is excellent and therefore retention of the cement mantle and recementation into that previous mantle is a great advantage. This avoids the risks of cement removal and allows for much easier fixation. Stems have been designed specifically to allow this cement-in-cement technique. It can be used most readily with polished tapered stems - tap out a stem, gain access at the time of revision surgery and reinsert it. It is, however, now increasingly used when any cemented stems are removed provided that the cement mantle is well fixed. The existing mantle is either wide enough to accommodate the cement-in-cement revision or can be expanded using manual instruments or ultrasonic tools. The cement interface is then dried and a new stem cemented in place. Whilst the direction of travel in revision hip arthroplasty has been towards cementless fixation, particularly with tapered distally fixed designs, the reality is that there is still a role for cement for its properties of immediate fixation, reduced fracture risk, local antibiotic delivery, impaction grafting and cement-in-cement revision

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

Background. Tapered cementless femoral components have been used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) constructs for more than 20 years. The Synergy femoral component was introduced in 1996 as a second generation titanium proximally porous-coated tapered stem with dual offsets to better restore femoral offset at THA (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the authors' experience using the Synergy stem at minimum 15 years of follow-up. Material and methods. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 102 patients (112 hips) who underwent surgery between November 1996 and October 1998 for primary THA using cementless Synergy stem with a minimum 15-years follow-up. The mean age at the time of surgery was 61 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 16.3 years. Seventeen patients were lost at FU (8 died before the 15 years mark, 8 changed residency, 1 not willing to be seen) with no problems related to the replaced hip. Ninety-four hips in 85 patients were available for clinical and radiologic analysis. Clinical results of the 94 THAs with more than 15 years of follow-up were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 5, 10 and 15 years by means of standard evaluation tools: SF12, WOMAC and Harris Hip Score. Thigh pain frequency and intensity were also recorded. Radiographic analysis (Figure 2) was focused on stem alignment, bone ingrowth, radiolucent lines presence, width and progression, stress-shielding and heterotopic ossification (HTO). Student paired test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results. All clinical evaluation tools showed at 5-year FU, 10-year FU and at latest FU (15–17 years) a statistically significant improvement compared to the preoperative scores. We observed a not constant thigh pain in 5 hips (4.75%). Nine stems were revised due to polyethylene wear (3 cases), late periprosthetic fracture (2 cases), infection (2 cases), subsidence (1 case) and instability (1 case). Stem related revision was a case of subsidence, related to occult intraoperative calcar crack and early revised (within 1 year); cumulative stem-related survival rate at 15 years was 99%. Alignment was varus in 5 cases and valgus in 1. Bone in-growth was observed in 93 hips (98%). Radiolucent lines were uncommon, non progressive, less than 2 mm, in Gruen zones 2 and 6. Stress-shielding was present as cortical reaction in 5 femurs in Gruen zones 3 and 5. Fifteen cases of HTO (grade I and II in 12 case and grade III in 3 cases) were observed. Conclusions. The Synergy stem demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic results at 15–17 years FU in 85 patients. Survivorship (with stem revision as end point) was 99% at 15 years. Thigh pain was uncommon and the level of activity and autonomy is excellent. Radiographically bone ingrowth is evident in all stems and radiolucent lines are “benign” with no aseptic loosening

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

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful and commonly performed surgical interventions worldwide. Based on registry data, at one-year post THA, implant survivorship is nearly 100% and patient satisfaction is 90%. A novel, porous coated acetabular implant was introduced in Europe and Australia in 2007. Several years after its introduction, warnings were issued for the system when used with metal-on-metal bearings due to adverse local tissue reaction, with one study reporting a 24% failure rate (Dramis et al. 2014). A subsequent 2018 study by Teoh et al. showed that the acetabular system had a survival rate of 98.9% at five years when used with conventional polyethylene or ceramic bearing surfaces. The current study was conducted to determine the safety and effectiveness of the acetabular system using standard highly-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) and ceramic liners at five-year follow-up. Our hypothesis was that the acetabular system would exhibit survivorship comparable to other acetabular components on the market at five-year follow-up. A prospective, non-randomized study was conducted from February 2009 to June 2017 at eight sites in Canada and the USA. One hundred fifty-five hips were enrolled and 148 hips analyzed after THA indicated for degenerative arthritis. At five-year follow-up, 103 subjects remained for final analysis. All patients received a zero, three, or multi-hole R3 acetabular shell with Stiktite porous coating (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN, USA). Standard THA surgical techniques were employed, with surgical approach and either of a XLPE or ceramic bearing surface chosen at the discretion of the surgeon. The primary outcome was revision at five-years post-op with secondary outcomes including the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), radiographic analysis, and post-operative adverse events. Data and outcomes were analyzed using summary statistics with 95% confidence intervals, t-tests, and Wilcoxon Rank tests. At five-year follow-up the overall success rate was 97.14% (95% CI: 91.88–100). When analyzed by liner type, the success rate was 96.81% (95% CI: 90.96–99.34) for polyethylene (n=94) and 100% (95% CI: 71.51–100) for ceramic (n=11), with no significant difference between either liner type (p=1). There were three revisions during the study (1.9%), two for femoral stem revision post fracture, and one for deep infection. The HHS (51.36 pre-op, 94.50 five-year), all 5 HOOS sub-scales, and WOMAC (40.9 pre-op, 89.13 five-year) scores all significantly improved (p < 0 .001) over baseline scores at all follow-up points. One (0.7%) subject met the criteria for radiographic failure at one-year post-op but did not require revision. Six (1.8%) of the reported adverse events were considered related to the study device, including four cases of squeaking, one bursitis, and one femur fracture. Results from this five-year, multicenter, prospective study indicate good survivorship for this novel, porous coated acetabular system. The overall survivorship of 97.14% at five-year follow-up is comparable to that reported for similar acetabular components and aligns with previous analyses (Teoh et al. 2018)

Background. Well-fixed cementless stems are sometimes needed to be extracted in patients with complications including periprosthetic infection, stem-neck breakage or trunnionosis. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical outcome in patients undergoing re-implantation surgery following removal of a well-fixed porous-coated cementless stem by the femoral longitudinal split (FLS) procedure(Fig.1, Fig.2). Methods. We conducted a retrospective study and radiographic review of 16 patients who had undergone re-implantation following the FLS procedure to remove a well-fixed stem due to periprosthetic infection, stem-neck breakage or trunnionosis. The study group consisted of 2 men and 14women with an average age of 68.4 years. Mean follow-up was 33.1± 25.0 months. Operation time, intraoperative bleeding, complications, causes of re-operation and clinical score were evaluated and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the longevity of the stem. Results. The average operation time was 272±63 minutes and intraoperative bleeding was 420±170 ml. Although postoperative dislocation occurred in 5 hips and sinking of the stem was found in 3 hips after surgery, no progression of the stem sinking was observed and the clinical JOA and JHEQ scores were both improved after re-implantation surgery. Re-implantation surgery with Zweymüller-type stems, which are shorter than those removed, revealed evidence of osseointegration of the stem without femoral fracture. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of stem revision for any reason as the end point revealed 70.3% survival at 9 years (Fig.3). Conclusion. The FLS procedure is expected to confer successful clinical results without loosening of the stem, following safe extraction of well-fixed porous-coated cementless stems without fracture and will allow re-implantation with shorter cementless stems than those removed. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Cementless stem fixation is a widely used method of stem revision in North America and elsewhere in the world. There is abundant literature in its support. Most of the reports from 1985 to 2005 related to proximally or extensively porocoated designs, the former falling into disfavor with time because of unpredictable outcomes. With few exceptions (e.g. S-ROM) the modularity of these designs was limited to the head/neck junction. But this generation of designs was associated with some issues such as insertional fractures, limited control of anteversion (and risk of dislocation), limited applicability in the setting of severe bone loss (Paprosky Type 4 osteolysis or Vancouver Type B3 periprosthetic fracture), as well as ongoing concern relating to severe proximal stress shielding. In the past decade we have seen the mounting use of a new design concept: tapered fluted titanium stems (TFTS), which incorporate the advantages of titanium (for less flexural rigidity), conical taper (for vertical taper-lock stability), longitudinal ribs or flutes (for rotational stability), and surface preparation which attracts bone ongrowth for long term fixation. Four consecutive reports from our center have documented the superiority of the TFTS in our hands, with encouraging outcomes even when dealing with severe bone loss or periprosthetic fractures. There is an increasing body of other literature which reports a similar experience. Furthermore, with increasing experience and confidence in this design concept, we now use a monoblock or non-modular design in the majority of cases in which a TFTS is indicated. This circumvents the potential drawbacks of stem modularity, including taper corrosion and taper junction fracture. Our recent report of this concept in 104 cases with a 2-year minimum follow-up supports the use of this concept in many if not most stem revisions. The question remains as to which should be favored? Because of equipoise in the outcomes of the two fundamental stem designs, at least in our hands, clearly the surgeon needs to ask other, more practical questions:. Am I familiar enough with the TFTS technique so as to bypass the potential versatility of the modular stem for the simplicity and potential cost savings of the non-modular?. Is this a case in which modularity will offer me distinct advantages (periprosthetic fracture, and severe bone loss as examples). Should I introduce the nonmodular TFTS to my practice, choosing straightforward cases first; ones in which I would comfortably and with confidence use an extensively porocoated stem?

The choice of stem length in total hip revision with impaction bone grafting of femur is essentially based upon the grade of cavitation of femur and surgeon's preference. The standard length stem has been often critiqued for the apprehension of peri-prosthetic fracture. Our study highlights the importance of proximal bone stock rather than distal cavitation in determining the length of femoral stem. 168 total hip revisions of 162 patients with impaction bone grafting and cemented standard C-stem (done with standardized technique) between 1995 and 2008 at a tertiary referral centre were included. Revisions for infection and segmental bone defects were excluded. Serial radiographs were retrospectively analysed by two people independently, using Endoklinik classification, Gruen zones and more and outcomes were analysed. Mean follow-up of the 168 revision hips was 10.5 years (range 5 – 19.1 years). 14 patients (8.3%) were re-revised, reasons being, persistent deep infection (1.8%), repeated dislocations (1.2%), cup loosening (4.8%) and stem loosening (1.2%). Only 1 patient (0.6%) was re-revised due to stem loosening alone. No peri-prosthetic fractures or stem breakage were identified. Use of standard stem length in hip revisions with impaction bone grafting doesn't increase the risk of peri-prosthetic fractures even during long term follow up period. This questions the principle of bypassing the distal cavitation of femur by 2 cortical diameters with the use of long stem. In our experience, a good proximal femur support aids in the performance of standard length cemented stems in revision for aseptic loosening irrespective of grade of distal cavitation for cavitory defects of femur treated with impaction bone grafting

The disadvantage of removing a well-fixed femoral stem are multiple (operating time, risk of fracture, bone and blood loss, recovery time and post-op complications. Ceramic heads with titanium adapter sleeves (e.g. BIOLOX®OPTION, Ceramtec) are a possibility for putting a new ceramic head on slightly damaged used tapers. ‘Intolerable’ taper damages even for this solution are qualitatively specified by the manufacturers. The aim of this study was to determine the fracture strength of ceramic heads with adapter sleeves on stem tapers with such defined damage patterns. Pristine stem tapers (Ti-6Al-4V, 12/14) were damaged to represent the four major stem taper damage patterns specified by the manufacturers: . -. ‘Truncated’: Removal of 12.5% of the circumference along the entire length of the stem taper at a uniform depth of 0.5mm parallel to the taper slope. -. ‘Slanted’: Removal of 33.3% of the proximal diameter perimeter with decreasing damage down to 3.7mm from the proximal taper end. -. ‘Cut’: Removal of the proximal 25% (4mm) of the stem taper. -. ‘Scratched’: Stem tapers from a previous ceramic fracture test study with a variety of scratches and crushing around the upper taper edge from multiple ceramic head fractures. -. The ‘Control’ group consisted of three pristine tapers left undamaged. BIOLOX®OPTION heads (Ø 32mm, length M) with Ti adapter sleeves were assembled to the damaged stem tapers and subjected to ISO7206-10 ultimate compression strength testing. The forces required to fracture the head were high and caused complete destruction of the ceramic heads in all cases. The ‘Truncated’ group showed the lowest values (136kN ± 4.37kN; Fig. 3). Forces were higher and similar for the ‘Cut’ (170kN ± 8.89kN), ‘Control’ (171.8 ± 16.5kN) and ‘Slanted’ (173kN ± 21.9kN) groups, the ‘Scratched’ group showed slightly higher values (193kN ± 11.9kN). The Ti adapter sleeves were plastically deformed but did not fail catastrophically. The present study suggests that manufacturer's recommendations for removal of a well fixed femoral stem could be narrowed down to the ‘Truncated’ condition. Even this might not be necessary since the fracture load is still substantially higher than the ASTM standard requires. Surgeons should consider to keep stems with larger taper damages as previously thought and spare the patient from stem revision. The greatest reservation regarding adapter sleeves is the introduction of the new metal-on-metal interface between stem and sleeve, which could possibly facilitate fretting-corrosion, which is presently one of the major concerns for modular junctions (3). Clinically such problems have not been reported yet. Ongoing FE-simulations are performed to investigate whether micromotions between stem and head taper are altered by the investigated damages

The most common classification of periprosthetic femoral fractures is the Vancouver classification. The classification has been validated by multiple centers. Fractures are distinguished by location, stability of the femoral component, and bone quality. Although postoperative and intraoperative fractures are classified using the same three regions, the treatment algorithm is slightly different. Type A fractures involve the greater and lesser trochanter. Fractures around the stem or just distal to the stem are Type B and subcategorised depending on stem stability and bone quality. Type C fractures are well distal to the stem and are treated independent of the stem with standard fixation techniques. The majority of fractures are either B1 (stable stem) or B2 (unstable stem). The stem is retained and ORIF of the fracture performed for B1 fractures. B2 and B3 fractures require stem revision with primary stem fixation distal to the fracture. Intraoperative fractures use the same A, B, C regions but are subtyped 1–3 as cortical perforations, nondisplaced, and displaced unstable fractures, respectively. With the exception of A1 intraoperative fractures all other intraoperative fractures require surgical treatment. A recent publication utilizing a New York state registry highlighted the patient risk of mortality associated with periprosthetic hip fractures. One month, 6 month and 1 year mortality was 3.2%, 3.8% and 9.7%, respectively. The mortality risk was lower for periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF at 1 and 6 months compared to fractures requiring revision total hip

Background. KAR™ prosthesis was introduced following the success of Corail® femoral stem to tackle difficult revision cases (Paprosky type1, 2a, 2b and 3a). The ARTO group reported a success rate of 94% at 17 years follow-up. Only two independent studies reported similar success rate to date. Purpose. To analyse the short-term performance of the KAR™ prosthesis used in our unit. Methods. This was a retrospective study of all KAR™ prosthesis between 2005 and 2013. Basic demographic, stem size, indications, failures and complications were recorded. X-rays were analysed for evidence of implant failure and distal cortical hypertrophy. Results. A total of 83 cases were analysed. The mean age was 68 (range 38–88 years) with an average follow-up was 3 years (range 1–8 years). The main indications for revision were aseptic loosening (83.7%), and periprosthetic fractures (7%). Kaplan-Meier Survival Rate for ‘all reasons of failure’ and ‘stem loosening’ was 93.83% and 100% respectively at 3 years follow-up. The most common reason for failure following KAR™ revision was periprosthetic fracture (3 cases). All three cases had radiographic evidence of proximal bone loss prior to index revision. Two patients developed deep infection and one patient had stem subsidence requiring revision. One patient sustained dislocation but revision surgery was not required. When comparing the effect of cortical hypertrophy, there were no significant differences in the measured distal canal/cortical diameter over the entire period of follow-up. Discussion. KAR™ prosthesis offers respectable clinical performance over a short-term period. Revision rate for this system was comparable to other ‘independent non-designer’ study. The three patients that sustained periprosthetic fracture may have been better served with a distally locked stem revision system. We believe that this HA coated implant encourages consistent osseointegration around the metaphysis region when there is evidence of a sound distal fixation. Conclusion. This study confirms that this fully coated hydroxyapatite titanium stem offers reliable clinical performance in revision arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty has become one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures with long-term survival rate. An ever-increasing acceptance of the potential longevity of THA systems has contributed to an increasing incidence of THA in younger and more active patients. Nowadays, especially in younger patients, cementless THA is the favored method worldwide. Since the first cementless THA in late 1970s, many implant designs and modifications have been made. Despite excellent long-term results for traditional straight cementless stems, periprosthetic fractures or gluteal insufficiency are still a concern. For instance, as reported in a meta-analysis by Masonis and Bourne, the incidence of gluteal insufficiency after THA varies between 4% and 22%. In contrast, the flattened lateral profile of the SP-CL. ®. anatomical cementless stem can protect the greater trochanter during the use of cancellous bone compressors and can avoid gluteal insufficiency after THA. Another benefit of this stem design is the rotational stability and the natural load transfer due to the anatomical concept. In this context, we report our experiences using the SP-CL. ®. anatomical cementless stem. The study group consists of 1452 THA cases (850 male, 602 female) with an average age of 62 years (range 25–76 years). After a mean follow-up of 20 months, in seven cases (0.5%) a stem exchange was necessitated. The reason for stem revision was periprosthetic fracture in 4 cases (0.3%) and periprosthetic joint infection in three cases (0.2%). In five patients, hip dislocation and in four patients migration of the stem occurred. However, stem exchange was not required in those cases. In conclusion, the SP-CL. ®. anatomical cementless stem has excellent short-term results

Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During reverse replacement the biomechanical forces are different on the humeral stem. Stem loosening during reverse replacement may have different factors than anatomic replacement. A systemic review of 41 reverse arthroplasty clinical studies compared the functional outcomes and complications of cemented and uncemented stems in approximately 1800 patients. There was no difference in the risk of stem loosening or revision between cemented and uncemented stems. Uncemented stems have at least equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with cemented stems during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is associated with fully cemented stems or well ingrown components that exclude potential synovial debris that may cause osteolysis

The direct lateral (or anterolateral) approaches to the hip for revision THA involve detachment of the anterior aspect of the gluteus medius from the trochanter along with a contiguous sleeve of the vastus lateralis. Anterior retraction of this flap of gluteus medius and vastus lateralis and simultaneous posterior retraction of the femur creates an interval for division of gluteus minimus and deeper capsular tissues and exposure of the joint. To enhance reattachment of this flap of the anterior portion of the gluteus medius and vastus lateralis back to the trochanter, an oblique wafer of bone can be elevated along with the muscle off of the anterolateral portion of the trochanter. This bony wafer prevents suture pull out when large nonabsorbable sutures are used around or through the fragment and passed into the bone of the trochanteric bed for reattachment during closure. To prevent excessive splitting proximally into the gluteus medius muscle (and resulting damage to the superior gluteal nerve), it is often helpful to extend the muscle split further distally down into the vastus lateralis. This combined with careful elevation of the gluteal muscles off of the ilium (instead of splitting them) helps provide excellent and safe exposure of the entire rim of the acetabulum and access to the supracetabular region for bone grafting, acetabular augment placement and even fixation of the flanges of a cage. A simple method for posterior column plating via the anterolateral approach involves contouring of the distal end of the plate around the base of the ischium at the inferior edge of the socket. When an extended osteotomy of the femur is needed to correct deformity, remove a well-fixed implant or cement, the “extensile” variation of this same surgical approach involves a Wagner style (lateral to medial) osteotomy of the greater trochanter and proximal femur. The anterior portion of the femur after it is osteotomised is elevated as a separate segment while maintaining the soft tissue attachments to the bone as much as possible to aid osteotomy healing. After implant or cement removal, this approach gives excellent direct access to the distal femur for placement of a long stem revision femoral component without bone-implant conflict proximally because of the bow of the femur. The anterolateral approach (and extensile variants detailed above) can be used routinely and safely in the full range of revision THA procedures, or it can be employed selectively, if desired, in cases at increased risk for dislocation