We reviewed the outcome of 69 uncemented, custom-made, distal femoral endoprosthetic replacements performed in 69 patients between 1994 and 2006. There were 31 women and 38 men with a mean age at implantation of 16.5 years (5 to 37). All procedures were performed for primary malignant bone tumours of the distal femur. At a mean follow-up of 124.2 months (4 to 212), 53 patients were alive, with one patient lost to follow-up. All nine implants (13.0%) were revised due to aseptic loosening at a mean of 52 months (8 to 91); three implants (4.3%) were revised due to fracture of the shaft of the prosthesis and three patients (4.3%) had a peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone remodelling associated with periosteal cortical thinning adjacent to the uncemented intramedullary stem was seen in 24 patients but this did not predispose to failure. All aseptically loose implants in this series were diagnosed to be loose within the first five years.

The results from this study suggest that custom-made uncemented distal femur replacements have a higher rate of aseptic loosening compared to published results for this design when used with cemented fixation. Loosening of uncemented replacements occurs early indicating that initial fixation of the implant is crucial.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:263–9.

We have investigated the accuracy of the templating of digital radiographs in planning total hip replacement using two common object-based calibration methods with the ball placed laterally (method 1) or medially (method 2) and compared them with two non-object-based methods. The latter comprised the application of a fixed magnification of 121% (method 3) and calculation of magnification based on the object-film-distance (method 4). We studied the post-operative radiographs of 57 patients (19 men, 38 women, mean age 73 years (53 to 89)) using the measured diameter of the prosthetic femoral head and comparing it with the true value.

Both object-based methods (1 and 2) produced large errors (mean/maximum: 2.55%/17.4% and 2.04%/6.46%, respectively). Method 3 applying a fixed magnification and method 4 (object-film-distance) produced smaller errors (mean/maximum 1.42%/5.22% and 1.57%/4.24%, respectively; p < 0.01). The latter results were clinically relevant and acceptable when planning was allowed to within one implant size. Object-based calibration (methods 1 and 2) has fundamental problems with the correct placement of the calibration ball. The accuracy of the fixed magnification (method 3) matched that of object-film-distance (method 4) and was the most reliable and efficient calibration method in digital templating.