Aims

Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA).

Aims

Options for the treatment of intra-articular ligament injuries are limited, and insufficient ligament reconstruction can cause painful joint instability, loss of function, and progressive development of degenerative arthritis. This study aimed to assess the capability of a biologically enhanced matrix material for ligament reconstruction to withstand tensile forces within the joint and enhance ligament regeneration needed to regain joint function.

Aims

To assess the effect of high tibial and distal femoral osteotomies (HTO and DFO) on the pressure characteristics of the ankle joint.

Instability is the reason for revision of a primary total knee replacement (TKR) in 20% of patients. To date, the diagnosis of instability has been based on the patient’s symptoms and a subjective clinical assessment. We assessed whether a measured standardised forced leg extension could be used to quantify instability.

A total of 25 patients (11 male/14 female, mean age 70 years; 49 to 85) who were to undergo a revision TKR for instability of a primary implant were assessed with a Nottingham rig pre-operatively and then at six and 26 weeks post-operatively. Output was quantified (in revolutions per minute (rpm)) by accelerating a stationary flywheel. A control group of 183 patients (71 male/112 female, mean age 69 years) who had undergone primary TKR were evaluated for comparison.

Pre-operatively, all 25 patients with instability exhibited a distinctive pattern of reduction in ‘mid-push’ speed. The mean reduction was 55 rpm (sd 33.2). Post-operatively, no patient exhibited this pattern and the reduction in ‘mid-push’ speed was 0 rpm. The change between pre- and post-operative assessment was significant (p < 0.001). No patients in the control group exhibited this pattern at any of the intervals assessed. The between-groups difference was also significant (p < 0.001). This suggests that a quantitative diagnostic test to assess the unstable primary TKR could be developed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1339–43.

As many as 25% to 40% of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions are performed for pain, a possible cause of which is proximal tibial strain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on cortical and cancellous proximal tibial strain in a synthetic bone model. Composite Sawbone tibiae were implanted with cemented UKR components of different designs, either all-polyethylene or metal-backed. The tibiae were subsequently loaded in 500 N increments to 2500 N, unloading between increments. Cortical surface strain was measured using a digital image correlation technique. Cancellous damage was measured using acoustic emission, an engineering technique that detects sonic waves (‘hits’) produced when damage occurs in material.

Anteromedial cortical surface strain showed significant differences between implants at 1500 N and 2500 N in the proximal 10 mm only (p < 0.001), with relative strain shielding in metal-backed implants. Acoustic emission showed significant differences in cancellous bone damage between implants at all loads (p = 0.001). All-polyethylene implants displayed 16.6 times the total number of cumulative acoustic emission hits as controls. All-polyethylene implants also displayed more hits than controls at all loads (p < 0.001), more than metal-backed implants at loads ≥ 1500 N (p < 0.001), and greater acoustic emission activity on unloading than controls (p = 0.01), reflecting a lack of implant stiffness. All-polyethylene implants were associated with a significant increase in damage at the microscopic level compared with metal-backed implants, even at low loads. All-polyethylene implants should be used with caution in patients who are likely to impose large loads across their knee joint.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1339–47.