Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):101–4.

Over the past 30 years there have been many improvements in implant fixation, correction of deformity, improved polyethylene wear, and survival after knee replacement. The work over the last decade has focused on less invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain management protocols, more rapid functional recovery and reduced length of stay, aiming to minimise the side effects of treatment while maintaining function and implant durability. When combined and standardised these pre-, intra- and post-operative factors have now facilitated outpatient knee replacement procedures for unicompartmental replacement, patella femoral arthroplasty and total knee replacement (TKR).

We have found liposomal bupivacaine, with potential for longer therapeutic action, to be a helpful adjunct and describe our current pain management program. The next step in our multimodal program is to improve the duration of patient satisfaction and reduce cost and length of stay after TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):7–9.

Direct anterior approaches to the hip have gained popularity as a minimally invasive method when performing primary total hip replacement (THR). A retrospective review of a single institution joint registry was performed in order to compare patient outcomes after THR using the Anterior Supine Intermuscular (ASI) approach versus a more conventional direct lateral approach. An electronic database identified 1511 patients treated with 1690 primary THRs between January 2006 and December 2010. Our results represent a summary of findings from our previously published work. We found that patients that underwent an ASI approach had faster functional recovery and higher Harris hip scores in the early post-operative period when compared with patients who had a direct lateral approach The overall complication rate in our ASI group was relatively low (1.7%) compared with other series using the same approach. The most frequent complication was early periprosthetic femoral fractures (0.9%). The dislocation rate in our series was 0.4% and the prosthetic joint infection rate was 0.1%. We suggest that the ASI approach is acceptable and safe when performing THR and encourages early functional recovery of our patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96- B(11 Suppl A):32–5.

The common recommended treatment for infected total hip replacement is two-staged exchange including removal of all components. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stems can result in structural bone damage. We recently reported on an alternative treatment of partial two-stage exchange used in selected cases, in which a well-fixed femoral stem was left and only the acetabular component removed, the joint space was debrided thoroughly, an antibiotic-laden polymethylmethacrylate spacer was moulded using a bulb-type syringe and placed in the acetabulum, intravenous antibiotics were administered during the interval, and delayed re-implantation was performed. In 19 patients treated with this technique from January 2000 to January 2011, 89% were free of infection at a mean follow-up of four years (2 to 11). Since then, disposable silicone moulds have become available to fabricate spacers in separate femoral and head units. The head spacer mould, which incorporates various neck taper adapter options, greatly facilitates the technique of partial two-stage exchange. We report our early experience using disposable silicone head spacer moulds for partial two-stage exchange in seven patients with infected primary hip replacements.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):66–9

Debate has raged over whether a cruciate retaining (CR) or a posterior stabilised (PS) total knee replacement (TKR) provides a better range of movement (ROM) for patients. Various sub-sets of CR design are frequently lumped together when comparing outcomes. Additionally, multiple factors have been proven to influence the rate of manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) following TKR. The purpose of this study was to determine whether different CR bearing insert designs provide better ROM or different MUA rates. All primary TKRs performed by two surgeons between March 2006 and March 2009 were reviewed and 2449 CR-TKRs were identified. The same CR femoral component, instrumentation, and tibial base plate were consistently used. In 1334 TKRs a CR tibial insert with 3° posterior slope and no posterior lip was used (CR-S). In 803 there was an insert with no slope and a small posterior lip (CR-L) and in 312 knees the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was either resected or lax and a deep-dish, anterior stabilised insert was used (CR-AS). More CR-AS inserts were used in patients with less pre-operative ROM and greater pre-operative tibiofemoral deformity and flexion contracture (p < 0.05). The mean improvement in ROM was highest for the CR-AS inserts (5.9° (-40° to 55°) vs CR-S 3.1° (-45° to 70°) vs CR-L 3.0° (-45° to 65°); p = 0.004). There was a significantly higher MUA rate with the CR-S and CR-L inserts than CR-AS (Pearson rank 6.51; p = 0.04). Despite sacrificing or not substituting for the PCL, ROM improvement was highest, and the MUA rate was lowest in TKRs with a deep-dish, anterior-stabilised insert. Substitution for the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in the form of a PS design may not be necessary even when the PCL is deficient.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:129–32.

Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty gained significant favor in the first decade of the millennium. However, the past several years have seen increasing reports of failure, pseudotumor and other adverse reactions. This study presents the results of a single center’s 15-year experience with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty as strong evidence that metal-on-metal is going, going, gone.

A moderator and panel of five experts led an interactive session in discussing five challenging and interesting patient case presentations involving surgery of the hip. The hip pathologies reviewed included failed open reduction internal fixation of subcapital femoral neck fracture, bilateral hip disease, evaluation of pain after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, avascular necrosis, aseptic loosening secondary to osteolysis and polyethylene wear, and management of ceramic femoral head fracture.

Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history, querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose. Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage and hence poor clinical outcome.