To assess the sustainability of our institutional bone bank, we calculated the final product cost of fresh-frozen femoral head allografts and compared these costs with the use of commercial alternatives. Between 2007 and 2010 all quantifiable costs associated with allograft donor screening, harvesting, storage, and administration of femoral head allografts retrieved from patients undergoing elective hip replacement were analysed.

From 290 femoral head allografts harvested and stored as full (complete) head specimens or as two halves, 101 had to be withdrawn. In total, 104 full and 75 half heads were implanted in 152 recipients. The calculated final product costs were €1367 per full head. Compared with the use of commercially available processed allografts, a saving of at least €43 119 was realised over four-years (€10 780 per year) resulting in a cost-effective intervention at our institution. Assuming a price of between €1672 and €2149 per commercially purchased allograft, breakeven analysis revealed that implanting between 34 and 63 allografts per year equated to the total cost of bone banking.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1307–11

Deficiencies of acetabular bone stock at revision hip replacement were reconstructed with two different types of allograft using impaction bone grafting and a Burch-Schneider reinforcement ring. We compared a standard frozen non-irradiated bone bank allograft (group A) with a freeze-dried irradiated bone allograft, vitalised with autologous marrow (group B). We studied 78 patients (79 hips), of whom 87% (69 hips) had type III acetabular defects according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification at a mean of 31.4 months (14 to 51) after surgery. At the latest follow-up, the mean Harris hip score was 69.9 points (13.5 to 97.1) in group A and 71.0 points (11.5 to 96.5) in group B. Each hip showed evidence of trabeculation and incorporation of the allograft with no acetabular loosening. These results suggest that the use of an acetabular reinforcement ring and a living composite of sterile allograft and autologous marrow appears to be a method of reconstructing acetabular deficiencies which gives comparable results to current forms of treatment

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a lateral rim mesh on the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients, aged 50 years or younger.

Revision total hip replacement (THR) for young patients is challenging because of technical complexity and the potential need for subsequent further revisions. We have assessed the survivorship, functional outcome and complications of this procedure in patients aged <  50 years through a large longitudinal series with consistent treatment algorithms. Of 132 consecutive patients (181 hips) who underwent revision THR, 102 patients (151 hips) with a mean age of 43 years (22 to 50) were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 11 years (2 to 26) post-operatively. We attempted to restore bone stock with allograft where indicated. Using further revision for any reason as an end point, the survival of the acetabular component was 71% (sd 4) and 54% (sd 7) at ten- and 20 years. The survival of the femoral component was 80% (sd 4) and 62% (sd 6) at ten- and 20 years. Complications included 11 dislocations (6.1%), ten periprosthetic fractures (5.5%), two deep infections (1.1%), four sciatic nerve palsies (2.2%; three resolved without intervention, one improved after exploration and freeing from adhesions) and one vascular injury (0.6%). The mean modified Harris Hip Score was 41 (10 to 82) pre-operatively, 77 (39 to 93) one year post-operatively and 77 (38 to 93) at the latest review.

This overall perspective on the mid- to long-term results is valuable when advising young patients on the prospects of revision surgery at the time of primary replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1047–51.

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis.

At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock.

In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040).

The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24.

Loss of bone stock is a major problem in revision surgery of the hip. Impaction bone grafting of the femur is frequently used when dealing with deficient bone stock. In this retrospective study a consecutive series of 68 patients (69 hips) who had revision of a hip replacement with femoral impaction grafting were reviewed. Irradiated bone allograft was used in all hips. Radiological measurement of subsidence of the stem, incorporation of the graft and remodelling was carried out and showed incorporation of the graft in 26 of 69 hips (38%). However, there was no evidence of trabecular remodelling. Moderate subsidence of 5 mm to 10 mm occurred in ten hips (14.5%), and massive subsidence of > 10 mm in five (7.2%).

The results of this study are less favourable than those of others describing studies of revision of the femoral stem using impaction bone grafting. The absence of the characteristic changes of graft remodelling noted in other series raises the question as to whether irradiated bone graft may be a significant factor influencing the post-operative outcome.

We report the use of porous metal acetabular revision shells in the treatment of contained bone loss. The outcomes of 53 patients with ≤ 50% acetabular bleeding host bone contact were compared with a control group of 49 patients with > 50% to 85% bleeding host bone contact. All patients were treated with the same type of trabecular metal acetabular revision shell. The mean age at revision was 62.4 years (42 to 80) and the mean follow-up of both groups was 72.4 months (60 to 102). Clinical, radiological and functional outcomes were assessed. There were four (7.5%) mechanical failures in the ≤ 50% host bone contact group and no failures in the > 50% host bone contact group (p = 0.068). Out of both groups combined there were four infections (3.9%) and five recurrent dislocations (4.9%) with a stable acetabular component construct that were revised to a constrained liner. Given the complexity of the reconstructive challenge, porous metal revision acetabular shells show acceptable failure rates at five to ten years’ follow-up in the setting of significant contained bone defects. This favourable outcome might be due to the improved initial stability achieved by a high coefficient of friction between the acetabular implant and the host bone, and the high porosity, which affords good bone ingrowth.

The clinical and radiological results of 50 consecutive acetabular reconstructions in 48 patients using impaction grafting have been retrospectively reviewed. A 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and Apapore 60, a synthetic bone graft substitute, was used in all cases. There were 13 complex primary and 37 revision procedures with a mean follow-up of five years (3.4 to 7.6). The clinical survival rate was 100%, with improvements in the mean Harris Hip Scores for pain and function. Radiologically, 30 acetabular grafts showed evidence of incorporation, ten had radiolucent lines and two acetabular components migrated initially before stabilising.

Acetabular reconstruction in both primary and revision surgery using a 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground, irriadiated bone and Apapore 60 appears to be a reliable method of managing acetabular defects. Longer follow-up will be required to establish whether this technique is as effective as using fresh-frozen allograft.

We present an update of the clinical and radiological results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafts and a cemented acetabular component in 58 patients, at a mean follow-up of 22.2 years (20 to 25). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for the acetabular component with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 75% at 20 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 62 to 88) when 16 hips were at risk. Excluding two revisions for septic loosening at three and six years, the survivorship at 20 years was 79% (95% CI 67 to 93). With further exclusions of one revision of a well-fixed acetabular component after 12 years during a femoral revision and two after 17 years for wear of the acetabular component, the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 87% at 20 years (95% CI 76 to 97). At the final review 14 of the 16 surviving hips had radiographs available. There was one additional case of radiological loosening and four acetabular reconstructions showed progressive radiolucent lines in one or two zones.

Acetabular revision using impacted large morsellised bone chips (0.5 cm to 1 cm in diameter) and a cemented acetabular component remains a reliable technique for reconstruction, even when assessed at more than 20 years after surgery.

We report the use of an allograft prosthetic composite for reconstruction of the skeletal defect in complex revision total hip replacement for severe proximal femoral bone loss. Between 1986 and 1999, 72 patients (20 men, 52 women) with a mean age of 59.9 years (38 to 78) underwent reconstruction using this technique.

At a mean follow-up of 12 years (8 to 20) 57 patients were alive, 14 had died and one was lost to follow-up. Further revision was performed in 19 hips at a mean of 44.5 months (11 to 153) post-operatively. Causes of failure were aseptic loosening in four, allograft resorption in three, allograft nonunion in two, allograft fracture in four, fracture of the stem in one, and deep infection in five. The survivorship of the allograft-prosthesis composite at ten years was 69.0% (95% confidence interval 67.7 to 70.3) with 26 patients remaining at risk. Survivorship was statistically significantly affected by the severity of the pre-operative bone loss (Paprosky type IV; p = 0.019), the number of previous hip revisions exceeding two (p = 0.047), and the length of the allograft used (p = 0.005).

We describe 129 consecutive revision total hip replacements using a Charnley-Kerboull femoral component of standard length with impaction allografting. The mean follow-up was 8.2 years (2 to 16). Additionally, extramedullary reinforcement was performed using struts of cortical allograft in 49 hips and cerclage wires in 30.

There was one intra-operative fracture of the femur but none later. Two femoral components subsided by 5 mm and 8 mm respectively, and were considered to be radiological failures. No further revision of a femoral component was required. The rate of survival of the femoral component at nine years, using radiological failure as the endpoint, was 98%. Our study showed that impaction grafting in association with a Charnley-Kerboull femoral component has a low rate of subsidence. Reconstruction of deficiencies of distal bone with struts of cortical allograft appeared to be an efficient way of preventing postoperative femoral fracture for up to 16 years.

We reviewed the results of 71 revisions of the acetabular component in total hip replacement, using impaction of bone allograft. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years (1.6 to 9.7). All patients were assessed according to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) classification of bone loss, the amount of bone graft required, thickness of the graft layer, signs of graft incorporation and use of augmentation.

A total of 20 acetabular components required re-revision for aseptic loosening, giving an overall survival of 72% (95% CI, 54.4 to 80.5). Of these failures, 14 (70%) had an AAOS type III or IV bone defect. In the failed group, poor radiological and histological graft incorporation was seen.

These results suggest that impaction allografting in acetabular revision with severe bone defects may have poorer results than have previously been reported.