Introduction

Current methodologies for designing and validating existing THA systems can be expensive and time-consuming. A validated mathematical model provides an alternative solution with immediate predictions of contact mechanics and an understanding of potential adverse effects. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the value of a validated forward solution mathematical model of the hip that can offer kinematic results similar to fluoroscopy and forces similar to telemetric implants.

With the success of the medial parapatellar approach (MPA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), current research is aimed at reducing iatrogenic microneurovascular and soft tissues damage to the knee. In an effort to avoid disruption to the medial structures of the knee, we propose a novel quadriceps-sparing, subvastus lateralis approach (SLA) to TKA. The aim of the present study is to compare if a SLA can provide adequate exposure of the internal compartment of the knee while reducing soft tissue damage, compared to the MPA. Less disruption of these tissues could translate to better patient outcomes, such as reduced post-operative pain, increased range of motion, reduced instances of patellar maltracking or necrosis, and a shorter recovery time.

To determine if adequate exposure could be achieved, the length of the skin incision and perimeter of surgical exposure was compared amongst 22 paired fresh-frozen cadaveric lower limbs (five females/six males) which underwent TKA using the SLA or MPA approach. Additionally, subjective observations which included the percent of visibility of the femoral condyles and tibial plateau, as well as the patellar tracking, were noted in order to qualify adequate exposure. All procedures were conducted by the same surgeon. Subsequently, to determine the extent of soft tissue damage associated with the approaches, an observational assessment of the dynamic and static structures of the knee was performed, in addition to an examination of the microneurovascular structures involved. Dynamic and static structures were assessed by measuring the extent of muscular and ligamentus damage during gross dissection of the internal compartment of the knee. Microneurovascular involvement was evaluated through a microscopic histological examination of the tissue harvested adjacent to the capsular incision.

Comparison of the mean exposure perimeter and length of incision was not significantly different between the SLA and the MPA (p>0.05). In fact, on average, the SLA facilitated a 5 mm larger exposure perimeter to the internal compartment, with an 8 mm smaller incision, compared to the MPA, additional investigation is required to assert the clinical implications of these findings. Preliminary analysis of the total visibility of the femoral condyles were comparable between the SLA and MPA, though the tibial plateau visibility appears slightly reduced in the SLA. Analyses of differences in soft tissue damage are in progress.

Adequate exposure to the internal compartment of the knee can be achieved using an incision of similar length when the SLA to TKA is performed, compared to the standard MPA. Future studies should evaluate the versatility of the SLA through an examination of specimens with a known degree of knee deformity (valgus or varus).

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha 2 agonist, has been approved for providing sedation in the intensive care unit. Along with sedative properties, it has analgesic activity through its highly selective action on alpha 2 receptors. Recent studies have examined the use of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to prolong the duration of peripheral nerve blocks. Studies showing effectiveness of dexmedetomidine for adductor canal block in knee surgery are small. Also, its effectiveness has not been compared to Epinephrine which is a strong alpha and beta receptor agonist. In a previous study, we showed that motor sparing knee blocks significantly increased the duration of analgesia compared with periarticular knee infiltration using local anesthetic mixture containing Epinephrine following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this study, we compared two local anesthetic mixtures: one containing Dexmedetomidine and the other Epinephrine for prolongation of motor sparing knee block in primary TKA patients.

After local ethics board approval and gaining Notice of Compliance (NOC) from Health Canada for use of Dexmedetomidine perineurally, 70 patients between the ages 18 – 95 of ASA class I to III undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty were enrolled. Motor sparing knee block − 1) Adductor canal continuous catheter 2) Single shot Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve block 3) Single shot posterior knee infiltration was performed in all patients using 60 ml mixture of 0.5% Ropivacaine, 10 mg Morphine, 30 mg Ketorolac. Patients randomized into the Dexmedetomidine group (D) received, in addition to the mixture, 1mcg/kg Dexmedetomidine and the Epinephrine (E) group received 200mcg in the mixture. The primary outcome was time to first rescue analgesia as a surrogate for duration of analgesia and secondary outcomes were NRS pain scores up to 24 hours and opioid consumption.

The time to first rescue analgesia was not significantly different between Epinephrine and dexmedetomidine groups, Mean and SD 18.45 ± 12.98 hours vs 16.63 ± 11.80 hours with a mean difference of 1.82 hours (95% CI −4.54 to 8.18 hours) and p value of 0.57. Pain scores at 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours were comparable between groups. Mean NRS pain scores Epinephrine vs Dexmedetomidine groups were 1.03 vs 0.80 at 4 hours, 1.48 vs 3.03 at 6 hours, 3.97 vs 4.93 at 12 hours, 5.31 vs 6.18 and 6.59 v 6.12 at 24 hours. Opioid consumption was also not statistically significant between both groups at 6, 12 18, 24 hours (p values 0.18, 0.88, 0.09, 0.64 respectively).

Dexmedetomidine does not prolong the duration of knee motor sparing blocks when compared to Epinephrine for total knee arthroplasty. Pain scores and opioid consumption was also comparable in both groups. Further studies using higher dose of dexmedetomidine are warranted.

While Oxidized Zirconium (OxZr) femoral heads matched with highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) have demonstrated the lowest rate of revision compared to other bearing couples in the Australian National Joint Registry, it has been postulated that these results may, in part, be due to the fact that a single company offers this bearing option with a limited combination of femoral and acetabular prostheses. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes in a matched cohort of total hip replacements (THR) utilizing an identical cementless femoral stem and acetabular component with either an Oxidized Zirconium (OxZr) or Cobalt-Chrome (CoCr) femoral heads at a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

We reviewed our institutional database to identify all patients whom underwent a THR with a single cementless femoral stem, acetabular component, XLPE liner and OxZr femoral head with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. These were then matched to patients who underwent a THR with identical prosthesis combinations with CoCr femoral head by gender, age and BMI. All patients were prospectively evaluated with WOMAC, SF-12 and Harris Hip Score (HHS) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 1 and 2 years and every 2 years thereafter. Charts and radiographs were reviewed to determine the revision rates and survivorship (both all cause and aseptic) at 10 years for both cohorts. Paired analysis was performed to determine if differences exist in patient reported outcomes.

There were 208 OxZr THRs identified which were matched with 208 CoCr THRs. There was no difference in average age (OxZr, 54.58 years, CoCr, 54.75 years), gender (OxZr 47.6% female, CoCr 47.6% female), and average body max index (OxZr, 31.36 kg/m2, CoCr, 31.12 kg/m2) between the two cohorts. There were no significant differences preoperatively in any of the outcome scores between the two groups (WOMAC (p=0.449), SF-12 (p=0.379), HHS(p=0.3718)). Both the SF12 (p=0.446) and the WOMAC (p=0.278) were similar between the two groups, however the OxZr THR cohort had slightly better HHS compared to the CoCr THR cohort (92.6 vs. 89.7, p=0.039). With revision for any reason as the end point, there was no significant difference in 10 years survivorship between groups (OxZr 98.5%, CoCr 96.6%, p=0.08). Similarly, aseptic revisions demonstrated comparable survivorship rates at 10 year between the OxZr (99.5%) and CoCr groups (97.6%)(p=0.15).

Both THR cohorts demonstrated outstanding survivorship and improvement in patient reported outcomes. The only difference was a slightly better HHS score for the OxZr cohort which may represent selection bias, where OxZr implants were perhaps implanted in more active patients. Implant survivorship was excellent and not dissimilar for both the OxZr and CoCr groups at 10 years. Therefore, with respect to implant longevity at the end of the first decade, there appears to be no clear advantage of OxZr heads compared to CoCr heads when paired with XLPE for patients with similar demographics. Further follow-up into the second and third decade may be required to demonstrate if a difference does exist.

Metal-on-metal bearings (MoM), in both a total hip and resurfacing application, saw an increase in global utilization in the last decade. This peaked in 2008 in the US, with approximately 35% of bearings being hard-on-hard (metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic). Beginning in 2008, reports in the orthopaedic literature began to surface regrading local soft tissue reactions and hypersensitivity to metal-on-metal bearings. A major implant manufacturer recalled a resurfacing device in 2010 after national joint registries demonstrated higher than expected revision rates.

Patients with painful metal-on-metal bearings presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon are a difficult diagnostic challenge. The surgeon must go back to basic principles, perform a complete history and physical exam, obtain serial radiographs and basic bloodwork (ESR, CRP) to rule out common causes of pain and determine if the pain is, or is not, related to the bearing.

The Asymptomatic MoM Arthroplasty: Patients will present for either routine followup, or because of concerns regarding their bearing. It is important to emphasise that at this point the vast majority of patients with a MoM bearing are indeed asymptomatic and their bearings are performing well. The surgeon must take into account: a) which specific implant are they dealing with and what is its track record; b) what is the cup position; c) when to perform metal ion testing; d) when to perform further soft tissue imaging (MARS MRI, Ultrasound); e) when to discuss possible surgery. A simple algorithm for both painless and painful MoM Arthroplasties has been developed and will be presented.

At the present time, there is no bearing in total hip arthroplasty that a surgeon can present to a younger and/or more active patient as being the bearing that will necessarily last them a lifetime. This is the driver to offering alternative bearings (crosslinked polyethylene with either a CoCr or ceramic head, resurfacings, and ceramic-on-ceramic) to patients. Each of these bearings has pros and cons, and none has emerged as the clear victor in the ongoing debate.

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings have been available for decades. Earlier generation CoC bearings did encounter problems with rare fractures, however, with a greater understanding and improvement in the material, the fracture incidence has been significantly reduced. However, what has emerged in the past few years is an increasing reporting of significant squeaking. The incidence of squeaking, reported in the literature in various series, has varied from less than 1% to over 20%, depending on the definition used.

The primary reasons that ceramic-on-ceramic is not truly the articulation of choice for younger patients are: 1) There is absolutely no evidence that this bearing has a lower revision rate. Data from the Australian joint registry actually shows that at 15 years it has a significantly increased rate of revision (7.2%) compared with using a highly crosslinked liner with either a ceramic (5.1%) or a CoCr (6.3%) head; 2) This bearing is by far the most costly bearing on the market. In 2017 with significant constraints on health care systems across the globe, this is a significant concern; 3) This bearing has unique complications including squeaking and both liner and head fracturing.

While ceramic-on-ceramic can be considered a viable alternative bearing in total hip arthroplasty, it can be in no way considered the articulation of longevity for the younger patient.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected knee arthroplasty experts.

The primary cases will include challenges such as patient selection and setting expectations, exposure, alignment correction and balancing difficulties. In the revision knee arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, fixation challenges, instability and infection management will be discussed.

This will be an interactive case-based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected hip arthroplasty experts. The primary cases will include challenges such as hip dysplasia, altered bony anatomy and fixation challenges. In the revision hip arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, leg length discrepancy, instability and infection will be discussed. This will be an interactive case-based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.

Patients with painful metal-on-metal bearings presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon are a difficult diagnostic challenge. The surgeon must go back to basic principles, perform a complete history and physical exam, obtain serial radiographs and basic blood work (ESR, CRP) to rule out common causes of pain and determine if the pain is, or is not, related to the bearing.

The Asymptomatic MoM Arthroplasty: Patients will present for either routine follow up, or because of concerns re: their bearing. It is important to emphasise that at this point the vast majority of patients with a MoM bearing are indeed asymptomatic and their bearings are performing well. The surgeon must take into account: a) which specific implant are they dealing with and what is its track record; b) what is the cup position; c) when to perform metal ion testing; d) when to perform further soft tissue imaging (MARS MRI, Ultrasound); e) when to discuss possible surgery.

Painful MoM THA causes not related to the bearing couple: These can be broken down into two broad categories. Causes that are Extrinsic to the hip include: spine, vascular, metabolic and malignancy. Causes that are Intrinsic to the hip can either be Extracapsular (iliopsoas tendonitis and trochanteric bursitis) or Intracapsular (sepsis, loosening, thigh pain, prosthetic failure)

Painful MoM THA causes related to the bearing couple: There are now described a number of possible clinical scenarios and causes of pain that relate to the metal-on-metal bearing couple itself: a) local hypersensitivity reaction without a significant soft tissue reaction; b) local hypersensitivity reaction with a significant soft tissue reaction; c) impingement and soft tissue pain secondary to large head effect.

Metal ions: obtaining serum, or whole blood, cobalt and chromium levels is recommended as a baseline test. However, there is no established cutoff level to determine with certainty if a patient is having a hypersensitivity reaction. A 7 parts per billion cutoff has been suggested. This gives high specificity, but poor sensitivity. Metal ions therefore can be used as a clue, and one more test in the workup, but cannot be relied upon in isolation to make a diagnosis.

MARS MRI: a useful tool for demonstrating soft tissue involvement, but there are many painless, well-functioning MoM implants that have soft tissue reactions, that don't require a revision. In the painful MoM hip an MRI, or ultrasound, is recommended to look for soft tissue destruction or a fluid-filled periprosthetic lesion (pseudotumor). Significant soft tissue involvement is concerning and is commonly an indication for revision in the painful MoM hip.

Treatment: management of the painful MoM hip is directly related to the etiology of the pain. Unique to MoM bearing is the issue of pain secondary to a local hypersensitivity reaction. All above tests should be utilised to help determine the best course of action in any individual patient. The painful MoM bearing, that is demonstrating significant soft tissue involvement is a concerning scenario. Earlier revision, to prevent massive abductor damage, would seem prudent for these patients. The painful MoM bearing with no significant soft tissue changes can probably be followed and reviewed at regular intervals. If the pain persists and is felt to be secondary to a hypersensitivity reaction, then revision is really the only option, although the patient must be cautioned regarding the unpredictable nature of the pain relief.

The use of robotics in total joint arthroplasty is the latest in a long list of expensive technologies that promise multiple positive outcomes, but come with an expensive price tag. In the last decade alone we've seen the same claims for navigation and patient specific instruments and implants. There are various current systems available including a robotic arm, robotic-guided cutting jigs and robotic milling systems.

For robotics to be widely adopted it will need to address the following concerns, which as of 2017 it has not.

1)

Cost - Very clearly the robotic units come with a significant price tag. Perhaps over time, like other technologies, they will reduce, but at present they are prohibitive for most institutions.

As with any new technology one must be wary of the claims superseding the results. In 2017 the jury is still out on the cost vs. benefit of robotic-assisted TKA.

At the present time, there is no bearing in total hip arthroplasty that a surgeon can present to a younger and/or more active patient as being the bearing that will necessarily last them a lifetime. This is the driver to offering alternative bearings (crosslinked polyethylene with either a CoCr or ceramic head, resurfacings, and ceramic-on-ceramic) to patients. Each of these bearings has pros and cons, and none has emerged as the clear victor in the ongoing debate.

Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC) bearings have been available for decades. Earlier generation CoC bearings did encounter problems with rare fractures, however, with a greater understanding and improvement in the material, the fracture incidence has been significantly reduced. However, what has emerged in the past few years is an increasing reporting of significant squeaking. The incidence of squeaking, reported in the literature in various series, has varied from less than 1% to over 20%, depending on the definition used.

The primary reasons that Ceramic-on-Ceramic is not truly the articulation of choice for younger patients are:

1)

There is absolutely no evidence that this bearing has a lower revision rate. Data from the Australian joint registry actually shows that at 15 years it has a significantly increased rate of revision (7.2%) compared with using a highly crosslinked liner with either a ceramic (5.1%) or a CoCr (6.3%) head.

While Ceramic-on-Ceramic can be considered a viable alternative bearing in total hip arthroplasty, it can be in no way considered the articulation of longevity for the younger patient.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected knee arthroplasty experts.

The primary cases will include challenges such as patient selection and setting expectations, exposure, alignment correction and balancing difficulties. In the revision knee arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, fixation challenges, instability, and infection management will be discussed.

This will be an interactive case based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.

The incidence of major complications following total joint arthroplasty is low, however, surgeons often continue to see patients regularly to monitor outcomes and the performance of the implant. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based follow-up compared to in-person assessment following primary total hip or total knee arthroplasty. We also determined patient satisfaction and preference for follow-up method.

Patients who were at least 12 months post-operative were randomised to complete either a web-based follow-up or to have their appointment at the clinic, as usual. We excluded patients who had revision surgery, osteolysis, or identified radiographic issues. We report the frequency of web-based patients who had an issue missed by using the web-based follow-up. We recorded travel costs and time associated with each follow-up, and any health care resource use for one year following the assessment. We conducted a cost analysis from the health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) and societal perspectives. All costs are presented in 2012 Canadian dollars. We used descriptive statistics to summarise the satisfaction and preference results and compared satisfaction between groups using Pearson's chi-square test.

Two-hundred-twenty-nine patients completed the study (111 usual-care, 118 web-based), with a mean age of 69 years (range, 38 – 86 years). There were no patients who had an issue missed by the web-based follow-up. The cost for the web-based assessment was significantly lower from both the societal perspective (mean difference, −$64; 95% confidence interval, −$79 to −$48; p < 0.01) and the health-care payer perspective (mean difference, −$27; 95% CI, −$29 to −$25; p < 0.01). Ninety-one patients (82.0%) in the usual-care group indicated that they were either extremely or very satisfied with the follow-up process compared with 90 patients (75.6%) in the web-based group (p < 0.01; odds ratio = 3.95; 95% CI = 1.79 to 8.76). Similarly, 92.8% of patients in the usual care group were satisfied with the care they received from their surgeon, compared to 73.9% of patients in the web-based group (p < 0.01, OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.73 to 2.57). Forty-four percent of patients preferred the web-based method, 36% preferred the usual method, and 16% had no preference (p = 0.01).

Web-based follow-up is a feasible, clinically effective alternative to in-person clinic assessment, with moderate to high patient satisfaction. A web-based follow-up assessment has lower mean costs per person compared to the usual method of in-person follow-up from both a societal and health-care payer perspective. The web-based assessment may introduce additional efficiency by redirecting limited outpatient resources to those awaiting first consultation, patients who have complications, or those who are further post-operative and may require a revision.

Metal-on-metal bearings (MoM) saw an increase in global utilisation in the last decade. This peaked in 2008 in the US, with approximately 35% of bearings being hard-on-hard (metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic). Beginning in 2008, reports began to surface regarding local soft tissue reactions and hypersensitivity to MoM bearings. A major implant manufacturer recalled a resurfacing device in 2010 after national joint registries demonstrated higher than expected revision rates. Patients with painful MoM bearings are a difficult diagnostic challenge. The surgeon must go back to basic principles, perform a complete history and physical exam, obtain serial radiographs and basic blood work (ESR, CRP) to rule out common causes of pain and determine if the pain is, or is not, related to the bearing. The Asymptomatic MoM Arthroplasty: Patients will present for either routine follow up, or because of concerns regarding their bearing. It is important to emphasise that at this point the vast majority of patients with a MoM bearing are indeed asymptomatic and their bearings are performing well. The surgeon must take into account: a) which specific implant are they dealing with and what is its track record; b) what is the cup position; c) when to perform metal ion testing; d) when to perform further soft tissue imaging (MARS MRI, Ultrasound); e) when to discuss possible surgery. Painful MoM THA causes not related to the bearing couple: These can be broken down into two broad categories. Causes that are Extrinsic to the hip include spine, vascular, metabolic and malignancy. Causes that are Intrinsic to the hip can either be Extracapsular or Intracapsular. Painful MoM THA causes related to the bearing couple: There are now described a number of possible clinical scenarios and causes of pain that relate to the MoM bearing couple itself: A) Local hypersensitivity reaction without a significant soft tissue reaction; B) Local hypersensitivity reaction with a significant soft tissue reaction; C) Impingement and soft tissue pain secondary to large head effect. Factors related to a hypersensitivity reaction: Some patients, and prostheses, seem to be at a higher risk of developing issues following a MoM bearing, although our understanding of the interplay of these factors is still in evolution: patients at risk include all women and patients with smaller component sizes. Implant factors play a role with some implants having higher wear rates and being more prone to corrosion. Special tests: There is ongoing confusion related to the relative value of the various special tests that patients with a painful MoM undergo. A) Metal Ions - obtaining serum, or whole blood, cobalt and chromium levels is recommended as a baseline test. However, there is no established cutoff level to determine with certainty if a patient is having a hypersensitivity reaction. Metal ions therefore can be used as a clue, but cannot be relied upon in isolation to make a diagnosis. B) MARS MRI - a useful tool for demonstrating soft tissue involvement, but there are many painless, well-functioning MoM implants that have soft tissue reactions, that don't require a revision. In the painful MoM hip an MRI, or ultrasound, is recommended to look for soft tissue destruction or a fluid-filled periprosthetic lesion (pseudotumor). Significant soft tissue involvement is concerning and is commonly an indication for revision in the painful MoM hip. C) CT imaging - can be utilised to help determine cup position and combined anteversion, however, plain radiographs can give a rough estimate of this as well, so routine CT scan evaluations are not currently recommended. The painful MoM bearing, that is demonstrating significant soft tissue involvement is a concerning scenario. Earlier revision, to prevent massive abductor damage, would seem prudent for these patients.

The painful MoM bearing with no significant soft tissue changes can probably be followed and reviewed at regular intervals. If the pain persists and is felt to be secondary to a hypersensitivity reaction, then revision is really the only option, although the patient must be cautioned regarding the unpredictable nature of the pain relief.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing enjoyed a period of increased global clinical application beginning in the early to mid-2000's. This tapered off quickly, to the point that it is now a niche surgery. One naturally asks the question, why?

The answers are quite simple: 1) There are no clinical benefits when compared with total hip replacements (THA). While many authors have tried valiantly to demonstrate a benefit clinically to performing a resurfacing over a THA, they have simply been unable to convincingly do so. The procedures produce equivalent clinical results. Many claims, such as allowing a patient greater activity levels and return to sports are clearly heavily biased depending on patient selection. The only credible claim to an advantage over THA that can be made regarding resurfacing implants is indeed there is preservation of host bone of the femoral head and neck. However, this retained bone also reduces the femoral head-to-neck ratio compared to a THA and leads to the potential for bone-on-bone impingement that would not be seen if the neck was resected. Additionally the clinician needs to carefully question the true clinical relevance of this preserved bone. One need only think of all of the isolated acetabular component revisions, or polyethylene liner exchanges, that are performed while retaining solidly ingrown femoral components with good preservation of calcar bone years following the index procedure.

2) Resurfacing implants are much more costly than conventional THA implants. In an era of increased cost constraints, parties are willing to pay more only when there is a proven benefit. Resurfacing implants offer no such benefit.

3) There is a well-documented higher revision rate with resurfacing implants over THA.

While the previous claim was that this wasn't seen in younger males, that too has been disproven. The latest data from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry demonstrates the 15-year cumulative percentage revision rates for conventional total hip at 9.7% and resurfacing at 13.3%.

4) There is the significant risk of metal ions and local hypersensitivity secondary to the metal-on-metal bearing. Again, this risk is significantly limited with the use of a THA with a polyethylene insert.

5) There is a significant incidence of femoral neck fractures.

6) The overall femoral component loosening rates are higher than for total hip replacements.

7) There is a clear learning curve with resurfacing implants with most series showing increased complications in the first fifty cases, and depending on a surgeons overall clinical practice, it may be quite a challenge to ever really overcome this learning curve issue.

8) There is difficulty restoring offset and leg length discrepancies in certain cases when trying to utilise a resurfacing implant.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected hip arthroplasty experts. The primary cases will include challenges such as hip dysplasia, altered bony anatomy and fixation challenges. In the revision hip arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, leg length discrepancy, instability and infection will be discussed. This will be an interactive case-based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.

While no one would argue the necessary role for the medical management of patients with early knee arthritis, significant controversy remains regarding the ideal treatment for a patient with bone-on-bone osteoarthritis who could equally be treated with a high tibial osteotomy, a uni-compartmental total knee, potentially a patello-femoral replacement if dealing with isolated patello-femoral disease or lastly, a complete total knee replacement. While clearly to date there has not been consensus on this issue, a review of the arguments, both pro and con, should be used as a guide to the surgeon in making this clinical judgment.

1. Patient Satisfaction.- Many ardent supporters of uni-compartmental knee replacements espouse one of the principle benefits of the uni knee as much greater patient satisfaction. Unfortunately, what is never taken into account is the pre-selection bias that occurs in this patient population. Patients with the most minimal amount of arthritis and those with the greatest range of motion are pre-selected to undergo a uni-compartmental knee replacement compared to the more advanced arthritic knee with mal-alignment and more significant pre-operative disability that will undergo a total knee replacement. Additionally the sources of data to draw the conclusions must be carefully analyzed. We must avoid using data from small series with unblinded patients performed by surgeons expert in the technique. Instead registry data, with its broad based applicability, is a much more logical source of information. Of significance, when over 27,000 patients were assessed regarding satisfaction following knee surgery; there was no difference in proportions of satisfied patients whether they had a total knee or a uni-compartmental knee.

2. Implant Longevity - Once again large prospective cohort data in the form of arthroplasty registries strongly favors total knee arthroplasty over uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry demonstrated higher revision rates with uni's as compared with total knee replacements. In the Australian Joint Replacement Registry the cumulative 13-year percent revision rate for primary total knee replacements is 6.8% and for uni-compartmental knee replacements is 15.5%. Higher failure rates in uni-compartmental knee replacements seen in Australia has correlated to a significant decrease in the number of uni's being performed, which peaked at 15.1% in 2003 and in 2014 has reduced to 4.7%. There is a direct correlation to age, with younger patients having a significantly higher percentage of revision following uni-compartmental knee replacements (25% failure rate at 11 years if less than 55 years old). There is also tremendous variability in the success rate of the uni in the Australian Registry depending on the implant design (5 year cumulative revision rate range 5.0% to 18.9%), which is simply not seen in the total knee replacement population (5 year cumulative revision rate range 1.6% to 7.7%).

While one can perform the philosophical exercise of debating the merits of a total knee versus uni-compartmental knee, the evidence is overwhelming that in the hands of the masses a total knee replacement patient will have equal satisfaction to a uni-compartmental patient, and will enjoy a much lower probability of revision in the short term and in the long term.

Background

The advent of highly cross-linked polyethylene has resulted in improved wear rates and reduced osteolysis with at least intermediate follow-up when compared to conventional polyethylene. However, the role of alternative femoral head bearing materials in decreasing wear is less clear. The purpose of this study was to determine in-vivo polyethylene wear rates across ceramic, Oxinium, and cobalt chrome femoral head articulations.

Background

Fretting corrosion at the junction of the modular head neck interface in total hip arthroplasty is an area of substantial clinical interest. This fretting corrosion has been associated with adverse patient outcomes, including soft tissue damage around the hip joint. A number of implant characteristics have been identified as risk factors. However, much of the literature has been based on metal on metal total hip arthroplasty or subjective scoring of retrieved implants. The purpose of this study was to isolate specific implant variables and assess for material loss in retrieved implants with a metal on polyethylene bearing surface.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected hip arthroplasty experts. The primary cases will include challenges such as hip dysplasia, altered bony anatomy and fixation challenges. In the revision hip arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, leg length discrepancy, instability and infection will be discussed. This will be an interactive case-based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.