Aims

The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aims

Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up.

Increasing innovation in rapid prototyping (RP) and additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is bringing about major changes in translational surgical research.

This review describes the current position in the use of additive manufacturing in orthopaedic surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:455-60.

Aims

A failed total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is often associated with much bone loss. As an alternative to arthrodesis, the surgeon may consider a custom-made talar component to compensate for the bone loss. Our aim in this study was to assess the functional and radiological outcome after the use of such a component at mid- to long-term follow-up.

Objectives

Wound complications are reported in up to 10% hip and knee arthroplasties and there is a proven association between wound complications and deep prosthetic infections. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT) we explore the potential benefits of a portable, single use, incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressing (iNPWTd) on wound exudate, length of stay (LOS), wound complications, dressing changes and cost-effectiveness following total hip and knee arthroplasties.

Objectives

We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis.

Given the increasing number of total hip arthroplasty procedures being performed annually, it is imperative that orthopaedic surgeons understand factors responsible for instability. In order to treat this potentially complex problem, we recommend correctly classifying the type of instability present based on component position, abductor function, impingement, and polyethylene wear. Correct classification allows the treating surgeon to choose the appropriate revision option that ultimately will allow for the best potential outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):44–9.

Tapered fluted titanium stems are increasingly used for femoral revision arthroplasty. They are available in modular and non-modular forms. Modularity has advantages when the bone loss is severe, the proximal femur is mis shapen or the surgeon is unfamiliar with the implant, but it introduces the risk of fracture of the stem at the junction between it and the proximal body segment. For that reason, and while awaiting intermediate-term results of more recently introduced designs of this junction, non-modularity has attracted attention, at least for straightforward revision cases.

We review the risks and causes of fracture of tapered titanium modular revision stems and present an argument in favour of the more selective use of modular designs.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):50–3.

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7.

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.

An uncemented hemispherical acetabular component is the mainstay of acetabular revision and gives excellent long-term results.

Occasionally, the degree of acetabular bone loss means that a hemispherical component will be unstable when sited in the correct anatomical location or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biological fixation. On these occasions an alternative method of reconstruction has to be used.

A major column structural allograft has been shown to restore the deficient bone stock to some degree, but it needs to be off-loaded with a reconstruction cage to prevent collapse of the graft. The use of porous metal augments is a promising method of overcoming some of the problems associated with structural allograft. If the defect is large, the augment needs to be protected by a cage to allow ingrowth to occur. Cup-cage reconstruction is an effective method of treating chronic pelvic discontinuity and large contained or uncontained bone defects.

This paper presents the indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of various methods which use acetabular reconstruction cages for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):73–7.

Acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem facing the revision total hip replacement surgeon. Reconstruction of the acetabulum depends on the presence of anterosuperior and posteroinferior pelvic column support for component fixation and stability. The Paprosky classification is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Augments serve the function of either providing primary construct stability or supplementary fixation.

When a pelvic discontinuity is encountered we advocate the use of an acetabular distraction technique with a jumbo cup and modular porous metal acetabular augments for the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss and associated chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):36–42.

We present detailed information about early morbidity after aseptic revision knee replacement from a nationwide study. All aseptic revision knee replacements undertaken between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2011 were analysed using the Danish National Patient Registry with additional information from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The 1218 revisions involving 1165 patients were subdivided into total revisions, large partial revisions, partial revisions and revisions of unicondylar replacements (UKR revisions). The mean age was 65.0 years (27 to 94) and the median length of hospital stay was four days (interquartile range: 3 to 5), with a 90 days re-admission rate of 9.9%, re-operation rate of 3.5% and mortality rate of 0.2%. The age ranges of 51 to 55 years (p = 0.018), 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001) and ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) were related to an increased risk of re-admission. The age ranges of 76 to 80 years (p = 0.018) and the large partial revision subgroup (p = 0.073) were related to an increased risk of re-operation. The ages from 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001), age ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) and surgical time > 120 min (p <  0.001) were related to increased length of hospital stay, whereas the use of a tourniquet (p = 0.008) and surgery in a low volume centre (p = 0.013) were related to shorter length of stay.

In conclusion, we found a similar incidence of early post-operative morbidity after aseptic knee revisions as has been reported after primary procedures. This suggests that a length of hospital stay ≤ four days and discharge home at that time is safe following aseptic knee revision surgery in Denmark.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1649–56.

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.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is projected to increase by 137% from the years 2005 to 2030. Reconstruction of the femur with massive bone loss can be a formidable undertaking. The goals of revision surgery are to create a stable construct, preserve bone and soft tissues, augment deficient host bone, improve function, provide a foundation for future surgery, and create a biomechanically restored hip. Options for treatment of the compromised femur include: resection arthroplasty, allograft prosthetic composite (APC), proximal femoral replacement, cementless fixation with a modular tapered fluted stem, and impaction grafting. The purpose of this article is to review the treatment options along with their associated outcomes in the more severe femoral defects (Paprosky types IIIb and IV) in revision THA.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

This editorial considers the shortcomings of assessing outcome after joint replacement only by the survival of the implant.