A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.

Between 1996 and 2008, nine patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis underwent revision of a failed interposition arthroplasty of the elbow with a further interposition procedure using an allograft of tendo Achillis at a mean of 5.6 years (0.7 to 13.1) after the initial procedure. There were eight men and one woman with a mean age of 47 years (36 to 56).

The mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2 to 8). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance score improved from 49 (15 to 65) pre-operatively to 73 (55 to 95) (p = 0.04). The mean Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 26 (7 to 42). One patient was unavailable for clinical follow-up and one underwent total elbow replacement three months post-operatively. Of the remaining patients, one had an excellent, two had good, three fair and one a poor result. Subjectively, five of the nine patients were satisfied. Four continued manual labour.

Revision interposition arthroplasty is an option for young, active patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis who require both mobility and durability of the elbow.

We report the results of the revision of 123 acetabular components for aseptic loosening treated by impaction bone grafting using frozen, morsellised, irradiated femoral heads and cemented sockets. This is the first large series using this technique to be reported. A survivorship of 88% with revision as the end-point after a mean of five years is comparable with that of other series.

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.

We report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 208 consecutive femoral revision arthroplasties performed in 202 patients (119 women, 83 men) between March 1991 and December 2007 using the X-change Femoral Revision System, fresh-frozen morcellised allograft and a cemented polished Exeter stem. All patients were followed prospectively. The mean age of the patients at revision was 65 years (30 to 86). At final review in December 2013 a total of 130 patients with 135 reconstructions (64.9%) were alive and had a non re-revised femoral component after a mean follow-up of 10.6 years (4.7 to 20.9). One patient was lost to follow-up at six years, and their data were included up to this point. Re-operation for any reason was performed in 33 hips (15.9%), in 13 of which the femoral component was re-revised (6.3%). The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 52 (19 to 95) (n = 73) and improved to 80 (22 to 100) (n = 161) by the last follow-up. Kaplan–Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 90.2 to 97.4) at ten years; with femoral re-revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint it was 99.4% (95% CI 95.7 to 99.9); with femoral re-operation for any reason as the endpoint it was 84.5% (95% CI 78.3 to 89.1); and with subsidence ≥ 5 mm it was 87.3% (95% CI 80.5 to 91.8). Femoral revision with the use of impaction allograft bone grafting and a cemented polished stem results in a satisfying survival rate at a mean of ten years’ follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:771–9.

Between 1976 and 2004, 38 revision arthroplasties (35 patients) were performed for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. The mean interval from primary arthroplasty to revision was 7.1 years (0.4 to 16.6). A total of 35 shoulders (32 patients) were available for review at a mean follow-up of seven years (2 to 19.3).

Pre-operatively, 34 patients (97%) had moderate or severe pain; at final follow-up, 29 (83%) had no or only mild pain (p < 0.0001). The mean active abduction improved from 88° to 107° (p < 0.01); and the mean external rotation from 37° to 46° (p = 0.27). Excellent or satisfactory results were achieved in 25 patients (71%) according to the modified Neer rating system. Humeral components were cemented in 29, with ingrowth implants used in nine cases. There were 19 of standard length and 17 were longer (two were custom replacements and are not included). Bone grafting was required for defects in 11 humeri. Only two glenoid components were left unrevised. Intra-operative complications included cement extrusion in eight cases, fracture of the shaft of the humerus is two and of the tuberosity in four. There were four re-operations, one for recurrent humeral loosening, with 89% survival free of re-operations at ten years.

Revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the humeral component provides reliable pain relief and modest improvement of movement, although there is a substantial risk of intra-operative complications. Revision to a total shoulder replacement gives better results than to a hemiarthroplasty.

Bone allografts can be used in any kind of surgery involving bone from minor defects to major bone loss after tumour resection. This review describes the various types of bone grafts and the current knowledge on bone allografts, from procurement and preparation to implantation. The surgical conditions for optimising the incorporation of bone are outlined, and surgeon expectations from a bone allograft discussed.

We retrospectively compared wrist arthrodesis using the Mannerfelt technique in 19 or an AO-plate in 23 patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. The mean follow-up was for 76 months.

Compared with the Mannerfelt fusion group, patients in the AO-plate group reported greater satisfaction with their wrist function (74% vs 37%, p = 0.015). Complications were reported in six wrists in the AO-plate group and two wrists in the Mannerfelt fusion group (p = 0.258). At final follow-up, 95% of patients (41) reported either no pain or only mild pain. There was improvement in flexion of the finger joints in both groups but no significant improvement in the extension lag in either group.

Both methods relieve pain and improve function. Overall, the activities of daily living scores and the patients’ subjective assessment of outcome tended to be higher in the AO-plate group than in the Mannerfelt fusion group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, although more postoperative complications occurred in the AO-plate group, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.

We report on 397 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 371 patients with a mean clinical and radiological follow-up of 12.9 years (10 to 17.7). The mean age at surgery was 69 years (37 to 93). A total of 28 patients (8%) underwent further revision, including 16 (4%) femoral components. In all 223 patients (56%, 233 hips) died without further revision and 20 patients (5%, 20 hips) were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining patients, 209 (221 hips) were available for clinical assessment and 194 (205 hips) for radiological review at mean follow-up of 12.9 years (10 to 17.7).

The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 58.7 (11 to 92) points to 80.7 (21 to 100) (p <  0.001) and the mean Merle d’Aubigné and Postel hip scores at final follow-up were 4.9 (2 to 6), 4.5 (2 to 6) and 4.3 (2 to 6), respectively for pain, mobility and function. Radiographs showed no lucencies around 186 (90.7%) femoral stems with stable bony ingrowth seen in 199 stems (97%). The survival of the S-ROM femoral stem at 15 years with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 90.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.7 to 93.8) and with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint 99.3% (95% CI 97.2 to 99.8).

We have shown excellent long-term survivorship and good clinical outcome of a cementless hydroxyapatite proximally-coated modular femoral stem in revision hip surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:730–6.

We investigated whether strontium-enriched calcium phosphate cement (Sr-CPC)-treated soft-tissue tendon graft results in accelerated healing within the bone tunnel in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). A total of 30 single-bundle ACL reconstructions using tendo Achillis allograft were performed in 15 rabbits. The graft on the tested limb was treated with Sr-CPC, whereas that on the contralateral limb was untreated and served as a control. At timepoints three, six, nine, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery, three animals were killed for histological examination. At six weeks, the graft–bone interface in the control group was filled in with fibrovascular tissue. However, the gap in the Sr-CPC group had already been completely filled in with new bone, and there was evidence of the early formation of Sharpey fibres. At 24 weeks, remodelling into a normal ACL–bone-like insertion was found in the Sr-CPC group. Coating of Sr-CPC on soft tissue tendon allograft leads to accelerated graft healing within the bone tunnel in a rabbit model of ACL reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:923–8.

The October 2012 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: autologous chondrocytes and chondromalacia patellae; drilling the femoral tunnel at ACL reconstruction; whether we repair the radially torn lateral meniscus; factors associated with patellofemoral pain; mechanoreceptors and the allografted ACL; whether high tibial osteotomy can delay the need for knee replacement; return to sport after ACL reconstruction; tissue-engineered cartilage; and the benefits of yoga.

Impacted bone allograft is often used in revision joint replacement. Hydroxyapatite granules have been suggested as a substitute or to enhance morcellised bone allograft. We hypothesised that adding osteogenic protein-1 to a composite of bone allograft and non-resorbable hydroxyapatite granules (ProOsteon) would improve the incorporation of bone and implant fixation. We also compared the response to using ProOsteon alone against bone allograft used in isolation. We implanted two non-weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implants into each proximal humerus of six dogs, with each implant surrounded by a concentric 3 mm gap. These gaps were randomly allocated to four different procedures in each dog: 1) bone allograft used on its own; 2) ProOsteon used on its own; 3) allograft and ProOsteon used together; or 4) allograft and ProOsteon with the addition of osteogenic protein-1.

After three weeks osteogenic protein-1 increased bone formation and the energy absorption of implants grafted with allograft and ProOsteon. A composite of allograft, ProOsteon and osteogenic protein-1 was comparable, but not superior to, allograft used on its own.

ProOsteon alone cannot be recommended as a substitute for allograft around non-cemented implants, but should be used to extend the volume of the graft, preferably with the addition of a growth factor.