The most common reasons for revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are loosening and pain. Cementless components may reduce the revision rate. The aim of this study was to compare the fixation and clinical outcome of cementless and cemented Oxford UKAs.

A total of 43 patients were randomised to receive either a cemented or a cementless Oxford UKA and were followed for two years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), radiographs aligned with the bone–implant interfaces and clinical scores.

The femoral components migrated significantly during the first year (mean 0.2 mm) but not during the second. There was no significant difference in the extent of migration between cemented and cementless femoral components in either the first or the second year. In the first year the cementless tibial components subsided significantly more than the cemented components (mean 0.28 mm (sd 0.17) vs. 0.09 mm (sd 0.19 mm)). In the second year, although there was a small amount of subsidence (mean 0.05 mm) there was no significant difference (p = 0.92) between cemented and cementless tibial components. There were no femoral radiolucencies. Tibial radiolucencies were narrow (< 1 mm) and were significantly (p = 0.02) less common with cementless (6 of 21) than cemented (13 of 21) components at two years. There were no complete radiolucencies with cementless components, whereas five of 21 (24%) cemented components had complete radiolucencies. The clinical scores at two years were not significantly different (p = 0.20).

As second-year migration is predictive of subsequent loosening, and as radiolucency is suggestive of reduced implant–bone contact, these data suggest that fixation of the cementless components is at least as good as, if not better than, that of cemented devices.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:185–91.

In this retrospective study we evaluated the proficiency of shelf autograft in the restoration of bone stock as part of primary total hip replacement (THR) for hip dysplasia, and in the results of revision arthroplasty after failure of the primary arthroplasty. Of 146 dysplastic hips treated by THR and a shelf graft, 43 were revised at an average of 156 months, 34 of which were suitable for this study (seven hips were excluded because of insufficient bone-stock data and two hips were excluded because allograft was used in the primary THR). The acetabular bone stock of the hips was assessed during revision surgery. The mean implant–bone contact was 58% (50% to 70%) at primary THR and 78% (40% to 100%) at the time of the revision, which was a significant improvement (p < 0.001). At primary THR all hips had had a segmental acetabular defect > 30%, whereas only five (15%) had significant segmental bone defects requiring structural support at the time of revision. In 15 hips (44%) no bone graft or metal augments were used during revision.

A total of 30 hips were eligible for the survival study. At a mean follow-up of 103 months (27 to 228), two aseptic and two septic failures had occurred. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the revision procedures demonstrated a ten-year survival rate of 93.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78 to 107) with clinical or radiological failure as the endpoint. The mean Oxford hip score was 38.7 (26 to 46) for non-revised cases at final follow-up.

Our results indicate that the use of shelf autografts during THR for dysplastic hips restores bone stock, contributing to the favourable survival of the revision arthroplasty should the primary procedure fail.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:777–81.

Using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, 8639 cemented and 2477 uncemented primary hemiarthroplasties for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in patients aged > 70 years were included in a prospective observational study. A total of 218 re-operations were performed after cemented and 128 after uncemented procedures. Survival of the hemiarthroplasties was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard rate ratios (HRR) for revision were calculated using Cox regression analyses. At five years the implant survival was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97 to 97) for cemented and 91% (95% CI 87 to 94) for uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Uncemented hemiarthroplasties had a 2.1 times increased risk of revision compared with cemented prostheses (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, p < 0.001). The increased risk was mainly caused by revisions for peri-prosthetic fracture (HRR = 17), aseptic loosening (HRR = 17), haematoma formation (HRR = 5.3), superficial infection (HRR = 4.6) and dislocation (HRR = 1.8). More intra-operative complications, including intra-operative death, were reported for the cemented hemiarthroplasties. However, in a time-dependent analysis, the HRR for re-operation in both groups increased as follow-up increased.

This study showed that the risk for revision was higher for uncemented than for cemented hemiarthroplasties.

Femoral revision after cemented total hip replacement (THR) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem.

Femoral impaction allografting has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur. In combination with a primary cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for femoral bone restoration through incorporation and remodelling of the impacted morsellized bone graft by the host skeleton. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta-physis and diaphysis leading to a wide femoral shaft, are ideal indications for this technique. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 1 mm to 2 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a prosthesis dummy of the same dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is driven into the femur to ensure that the chips are very firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is cemented into the neo-medullary canal using bone cement.

To date several studies have shown favourable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported in independent clinical centres worldwide.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:92–4.

We reviewed the long-term clinical and radiological results of 63 uncemented Low Contact Stress (LCS) total knee replacements (TKRs) in 47 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 69 years (53 to 81). At a mean follow-up of 22 years (20 to 25), 12 patients were alive (17 TKRs), 27 had died (36 TKRs), and eight (ten TKRs) were lost to follow-up.

Revision was necessary in seven patients (seven TKRs, 11.1%) at a mean of 12.1 years (0 to 19) after surgery. In the surviving ten patients who had not undergone revision (15 TKRs), the mean Oxford knee score was 30.2 (16 to 41) at a mean follow-up of 19.5 years (15 to 24.7) and mean active flexion was 105° (90° to 150°). The survival rate was 88.9% at 20 years (56 of 63) and the Kaplan–Meier survival estimate, without revision, was 80.2% (95% confidence interval 37 to 100) at 25 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1497–9.

Ankle replacements have improved significantly since the first reported attempt at resurfacing of the talar dome in 1962. We are now at a stage where ankle replacement offers a viable option in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. As the procedure becomes more successful, it is important to reflect and review the current surgical outcomes. This allows us to guide our patients in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. What is the better surgical treatment – arthrodesis or replacement?

In a time of limited resources, the debate continues over which types of hip prosthesis are clinically superior and more cost-effective. Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly need robust economic evidence to understand the full value of the operation, and to aid decision making on the ‘package’ of procedures that are available and to justify their practice beyond traditional clinical preference.

In this paper we explore the current economic debate about the merits of cemented and cementless total hip replacement, an issue that continues to divide the orthopaedic community.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:874–6.

We reviewed the literature on the currently available choices of bearing surface in total hip replacement (THR). We present a detailed description of the properties of articulating surfaces review the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of existing bearing couples. Recent technological developments in the field of polyethylene and ceramics have altered the risk of fracture and the rate of wear, although the use of metal-on-metal bearings has largely fallen out of favour, owing to concerns about reactions to metal debris. As expected, all bearing surface combinations have advantages and disadvantages. A patient-based approach is recommended, balancing the risks of different options against an individual’s functional demands.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:147–56.

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.

We report the long-term survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients aged < 50 years at operation, and explore the factors affecting survival. Between 1997 and 2006, a total of 447 BHRs were implanted in 393 patients (mean age 41.5 years (14.9 to 49.9)) by one designing surgeon. The mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5.2 to 14.7), with no loss to follow-up. In all, 16 hips (3.6%) in 15 patients were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.7 to 98.3) at ten years and 94.1% (95% CI 84.9 to 97.3) at 14 years. Using aseptic revision as the endpoint, the survival for men with primary osteoarthritis (n = 195) was 100% (95% CI 100 to 100) at both ten years and 14 years, and in women with primary osteoarthritis (n = 109) it was 96.1% (95% CI 90.1 to 99.9) at ten years and 91.2% (95% CI 68.6 to 98.7) at 14 years. Female gender (p = 0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p = 0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. The median Oxford hip score (OHS, modified as a percentage with 100% indicating worst outcome) at last follow-up was 4.2% (46 of 48; interquartile range (IQR) 0% to 24%) and the median University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 6.0 (IQR 5 to 8). Men had significantly better OHS (p = 0.02) and UCLA scores (p = 0.01) than women. The BHR provides excellent survival and functional results in men into the second decade, with good results achieved in appropriately selected women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1172–7.

We compared the performance of uncemented trabecular metal tibial components in total knee replacement with that of cemented tibial components in patients younger than 60 years over two years using radiostereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). A total of 22 consecutive patients (mean age 53 years, 33 to 59, 26 knees) received an uncemented NexGen trabecular metal cruciate-retaining monobloc tibial component and 19 (mean 53 years, 44 to 59, 21 knees) a cemented NexGen Option cruciate-retaining modular tibial component.

All the trabecular metal components migrated during the initial three months and then stabilised. The exception was external rotation, which did not stabilise until 12 months. Unlike conventional metal-backed implants which displayed a tilting migration comprising subsidence and lift-off from the tibial tray, most of the trabecular metal components showed subsidence only, probably due to the elasticity of the implant.

This pattern of subsidence is regarded as being beneficial for uncemented fixation.

We randomised 62 knees to receive either cemented or cementless versions of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. The implants used in both arms of the study were similar, except that the cementless components were coated with porous titanium and hydroxyapatite. The tibial interfaces were studied with fluoroscopically-aligned radiographs.

At one year there was no difference in clinical outcome between the two groups. Narrow radiolucent lines were seen at the bone-implant interfaces in 75% of cemented tibial components. These were partial in 43%, and complete in 32%. In the cementless implants, partial radiolucencies were seen in 7% and complete radiolucencies in none. These differences are statistically significant (p < 0.0001) and imply satisfactory bone ingrowth into the cementless implants.

We summarise and highlight the safety concerns within the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery with particular emphasis placed on current controversies and reforms within the United Kingdom National Health Service.

The optimum cementing technique for the tibial component in cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. The technique of cementing, the volume of cement and the penetration are largely dependent on the operator, and hence large variations can occur. Clinical, experimental and computational studies have been performed, with conflicting results. Early implant migration is an indication of loosening. Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure in primary TKR and is the product of several factors. Sufficient penetration of cement has been shown to increase implant stability.

This review discusses the relevant literature regarding all aspects of the cementing of the tibial component at primary TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:295–300.

The December 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: swimming against the tide with resurfacing; hip impingement surgery; the relationship between obesity and co-morbidities and joint replacement infection; cemented hips; cross-linked polyethylene notching; whether cement is necessary in oncological arthroplasty; and how total hip replacement may result in weight gain.

An 81-year-old woman presented with a fracture in the left femur. She had well-fixed bilateral hip replacements and had received long-term bisphosphonate treatment. Prolonged bisphosphonate use has been recently linked with atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures. While the current definition of an atypical fracture of the femur excludes peri-prosthetic fractures, this case suggests that they do occur and should be considered in patients with severe osteopenia. Union of the fracture followed cessation of bisphosphonates and treatment with teriparatide. Thus, this case calls into question whether prophylactic intramedullary nailing is sufficient alone to treat early or completed atypical femoral fractures.

We report our experience of revision total hip replacement (THR) using the Revitan curved modular titanium fluted revision stem in patients with a full spectrum of proximal femoral defects. A total of 112 patients (116 revisions) with a mean age of 73.4 years (39 to 90) were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (5.3 to 9.1). A total of 12 patients (12 hips) died but their data were included in the survival analysis, and four patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. The clinical outcome, proximal bone regeneration and subsidence were assessed for 101 hips.

The mean Harris Hip Score was 88.2 (45.8 to 100) after five years and there was an increase of the mean Barnett and Nordin-Score, a measure of the proximal bone regeneration, of 20.8 (-3.1 to 52.7). Five stems had to be revised (4.3%), three (2.9%) showed subsidence, five (4.3%) a dislocation and two of 85 aseptic revisions (2.3%) a periprosthetic infection.

At the latest follow-up, the survival with revision of the stem as the endpoint was 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 99.4%) and with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. Peri-prosthetic fractures were not observed.

We report excellent results with respect to subsidence, the risk of fracture, and loosening after femoral revision using a modular curved revision stem with distal cone-in-cone fixation. A successful outcome depends on careful pre-operative planning and the use of a transfemoral approach when the anatomy is distorted or a fracture is imminent, or residual cement or a partially-secured existing stem cannot be removed. The shortest appropriate stem should, in our opinion, be used and secured with > 3 cm fixation at the femoral isthmus, and distal interlocking screws should be used for additional stability when this goal cannot be realised.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:889–95.

Stems improve the mechanical stability of tibial components in total knee replacement (TKR), but come at a cost of stress shielding along their length. Their advantages include resistance to shear, reduced tibial lift-off and increased stability by reducing micromotion. Longer stems may have disadvantages including stress shielding along the length of the stem with associated reduction in bone density and a theoretical risk of subsidence and loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture and end-of-stem pain. These features make long stems unattractive in the primary TKR setting, but often desirable in revision surgery with bone loss and instability. In the revision scenario, stems are beneficial in order to convey structural stability to the construct and protect the reconstruction of bony defects. Cemented and uncemented long stemmed implants have different roles depending on the nature of the bone loss involved.

This review discusses the biomechanics of the design of tibial components and stems to inform the selection of the component and the technique of implantation.

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results.

A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions.

We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort.

Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91.