Peri-prosthetic osteolysis and subsequent aseptic loosening is the most common reason for revising total hip replacements. Wear particles originating from the prosthetic components interact with multiple cell types in the peri-prosthetic region resulting in an inflammatory process that ultimately leads to peri-prosthetic bone loss. These cells include macrophages, osteoclasts, osteoblasts and fibroblasts. The majority of research in peri-prosthetic osteolysis has concentrated on the role played by osteoclasts and macrophages. The purpose of this review is to assess the role of the osteoblast in peri-prosthetic osteolysis. In peri-prosthetic osteolysis, wear particles may affect osteoblasts and contribute to the osteolytic process by two mechanisms. First, particles and metallic ions have been shown to inhibit the osteoblast in terms of its ability to secrete mineralised bone matrix, by reducing calcium deposition, alkaline phosphatase activity and its ability to proliferate. Secondly, particles and metallic ions have been shown to stimulate osteoblasts to produce pro inflammatory mediators in vitro. In vivo, these mediators have the potential to attract pro-inflammatory cells to the peri-prosthetic area and stimulate osteoclasts to absorb bone. Further research is needed to fully define the role of the osteoblast in peri-prosthetic osteolysis and to explore its potential role as a therapeutic target in this condition. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1021–5

The most frequent cause of failure after total hip replacement in all reported arthroplasty registries is peri-prosthetic osteolysis. Osteolysis is an active biological process initiated in response to wear debris. The eventual response to this process is the activation of macrophages and loss of bone. Activation of macrophages initiates a complex biological cascade resulting in the final common pathway of an increase in osteolytic activity. The biological initiators, mechanisms for and regulation of this process are beginning to be understood. This article explores current concepts in the causes of, and underlying biological mechanism resulting in peri-prosthetic osteolysis, reviewing the current basic science and clinical literature surrounding the topic

Aims. Limb-lengthening nails have largely replaced external fixation in limb-lengthening and reconstructive surgery. However, the adverse events and high prevalence of radiological changes recently noted with the STRYDE lengthening nail have raised concerns about the use of internal lengthening nails. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of radiological bone abnormalities between STRYDE, PRECICE, and FITBONE nails prior to nail removal. Methods. This was a retrospective case series from three centres. Patients were included if they had either of the three limb-lengthening nails (STYDE, PRECICE, or FITBONE) removed. Standard orthogonal radiographs immediately prior to nail removal were examined for bone abnormalities at the junction of the telescoping nail parts. Results. In total, 306 patients (168 male, 138 female) had 366 limb-lengthening nails removed. The mean time from nail insertion to radiological evaluation was 434 days (36 to 3,015). Overall, 77% of STRYDE nails (20/26) had bone abnormalities at the interface compared with only 2% of FITBONE (4/242) and 1% of PRECICE nails (1/98; p < 0.001). Focal osteolysis in conjunction with periosteal reaction at the telescoping interface was only observed in STRYDE nails. Conclusion. Bone abnormalities at the interface of telescoping nail parts were seen in the majority of STRYDE nails, but only very rarely with FITBONE or PRECICE nails. We conclude that the low prevalence of radiological changes at the junctional interface of 242 FITBONE and 98 PRECICE nails at the time of nail removal does not warrant clinical concerns. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1731–1735

Aims. Distraction osteogenesis with intramedullary lengthening devices has undergone rapid development in the past decade with implant enhancement. In this first single-centre matched-pair analysis we focus on the comparison of treatment with the PRECICE and STRYDE intramedullary lengthening devices and aim to clarify any clinical and radiological differences. Methods. A single-centre 2:1 matched-pair retrospective analysis of 42 patients treated with the STRYDE and 82 patients treated with the PRECICE nail between May 2013 and November 2020 was conducted. Clinical and lengthening parameters were compared while focusing radiological assessment on osseous alterations related to the nail’s telescopic junction and locking bolts at four different stages. Results. Osteolysis next to the telescopic junction was observed in 31/48 segments (65%) lengthened with the STRYDE nail before implant removal compared to 1/91 segment (1%) in the PRECICE cohort. In the STRYDE cohort, osteolysis initially increased, but decreased or resolved in almost all lengthened segments (86%) after implant removal. Implant failure was observed in 9/48 STRYDE (19%) and in 8/92 PRECICE nails (9%). Breakage of the distal locking bolts was found in 5/48 STRYDE nails (10%) compared to none in the PRECICE cohort. Treatment-associated pain was generally recorded as mild and found in 30/48 patients (63%) and 39/92 (42%) in the STRYDE and PRECICE cohorts, respectively. Temporary range of motion (ROM) limitations under distraction were registered in 17/48 (35%) segments treated with the STRYDE and 35/92 segments (38%) treated with the PRECICE nail. Conclusion. Osteolysis and periosteal reaction, implant breakage, and pain during lengthening and consolidation is more likely in patients treated with the STRYDE nail compared to the PRECICE nail. Temporary ROM limitations during lengthening occurred independent of the applied device. Implant-related osseous alterations seem to remodel after implant removal. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):88–96

Aims

The STRYDE nail is an evolution of the PRECICE Intramedullary Limb Lengthening System, with unique features regarding its composition. It is designed for load bearing throughout treatment in order to improve patient experience and outcomes and allow for simultaneous bilateral lower limb lengthening. The literature published to date is limited regarding outcomes and potential problems. We report on our early experience and raise awareness for the potential of adverse effects from this device.

Nanotechnology is the study, production and controlled manipulation of materials with a grain size < 100 nm. At this level, the laws of classical mechanics fall away and those of quantum mechanics take over, resulting in unique behaviour of matter in terms of melting point, conductivity and reactivity. Additionally, and likely more significant, as grain size decreases, the ratio of surface area to volume drastically increases, allowing for greater interaction between implants and the surrounding cellular environment. This favourable increase in surface area plays an important role in mesenchymal cell differentiation and ultimately bone–implant interactions.

Basic science and translational research have revealed important potential applications for nanotechnology in orthopaedic surgery, particularly with regard to improving the interaction between implants and host bone. Nanophase materials more closely match the architecture of native trabecular bone, thereby greatly improving the osseo-integration of orthopaedic implants. Nanophase-coated prostheses can also reduce bacterial adhesion more than conventionally surfaced prostheses. Nanophase selenium has shown great promise when used for tumour reconstructions, as has nanophase silver in the management of traumatic wounds. Nanophase silver may significantly improve healing of peripheral nerve injuries, and nanophase gold has powerful anti-inflammatory effects on tendon inflammation.

Considerable advances must be made in our understanding of the potential health risks of production, implantation and wear patterns of nanophase devices before they are approved for clinical use. Their potential, however, is considerable, and is likely to benefit us all in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 569–73.