Isolated patellofemoral arthritis is a common condition and there are varying opinions on the most effective treatments. Non-operative and operative treatments have failed to demonstrate effective long-term treatment for those in an advanced stage of the condition. Newer designs and increased technology in patellofemoral replacement (PFR) have produced more consistent outcomes. This has led to a renewed enthusiasm for this procedure. Newer PFR prostheses have addressed the patellar maltracking issues plaguing some of the older designs. Short-term results with contemporary prostheses and new technology are described here.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:124–8.

The August 2015 Wrist & Hand Roundup360 looks at: Scaphoid screws out?; Stiff fingers under the spotlight; Trigger finger: is complexity needed?; Do we really need to replace the base of the thumb?; Scapholunate ligament injuries and their treatment: a missed research opportunity?; Proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis

The August 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Clavicular fractures are being fixed – but how?; Propionibacterium acnes: a pain in the shoulder?; Bacteria, armpits and arthroplasty; Living longer, but unhappy: the woes of shoulder arthroplasty in the under 50s; Recurrent dislocations in the adolescent population; Splinting for elbow stiffness; Revision Bankart repair

The increasing need for total hip replacement (THR) in an ageing population will inevitably generate a larger number of revision procedures. The difficulties encountered in dealing with the bone deficient acetabulum are amongst the greatest challenges in hip surgery. The failed acetabular component requires reconstruction to restore the hip centre and improve joint biomechanics. Impaction bone grafting is successful in achieving acetabular reconstruction using both cemented and cementless techniques. Bone graft incorporation restores bone stock whilst providing good component stability. We provide a summary of the evidence and current literature regarding impaction bone grafting using both cemented and cementless techniques in revision THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:98–102.

The August 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Two days as good as three in TKA; Bilateral TKA: minimising the risks; Tranexamic acid in knee arthroplasty: everyone should be using it, but how?; Initial follow-up for knee arthroplasty?; Navigation finds its niche?; Another take on navigation?; Multimodal care for early knee osteoarthritis; ACL graft fixation methods under the spotlight

The August 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: The well-fixed acetabular revision; Predicting complications in revision arthroplasty; Is infection associated with fixation?; Front or back? An enduring question in hip surgery; Muscle-sparing approaches?; Gabapentin as a post-operative analgesic adjunct; An Indian take on AVN of the hip; Weight loss and arthroplasty

Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival. The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly for lateral UKA, particularly when fixed-bearing implants are used. Disappointing long-term outcomes have been observed with the first generation of patellofemoral implants, as well as early Bi-Uni (ie, combined medial and lateral UKA) or Bicompartmental (combined UKA and PFA) implants due to design and fixation issues. Promising short- and med-term results with the newer generations of PFAs and bicompartmental arthroplasties will require long-term confirmation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):9–15.

The June 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Modular femoral necks: early signs are not good; is corrosion to blame for modular neck failures; metal-on-metal is not quite a closed book; no excess failures in fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures; noise no problem in hip replacement; heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy: are NSAIDs the answer?; thrombotic and bleeding events surprisingly low in total joint replacement; and the elephant in the room: complications and surgical volume.

The June 2015 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Infection in megaprosthesis; Impressive results for mid femoral reconstruction; Revered teaching or old myth? Femoral neck protection in metastatic disease; Megaprosthesis about the knee; Malignant transformation in multiple hereditary exostoses; Fracture of intercalary bone allograft; Comorbidity and outcomes in sarcoma; A worrying turn? Use of denosumab for giant cell tumour of bone

The June 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Syndesmosis and outcomes in ankle fracture; Ankle arthrodesis or arthroplasty: a complications-based analysis; Crosslinked polyethylene and ankle arthroplasty; Reducing screw removal in calcaneal osteotomies; Revisiting infection control policies; Chevron osteotomy: proximal or distal?; Ankle distraction for osteoarthritis

The June 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: neuraxial anaesthesia and large joint arthroplasty; revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery; acetabular version and clinical outcomes in impingement surgery; hip precautions may be ineffective; implant selection and cost effectiveness; femoroacetabular impingement in the older age group; multiple revision in hip arthroplasty

The June 2015 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: HIV-related implant surgery in trauma; Major transfusion under the spotlight; Surgery and mortality in elderly acetabular fractures; Traction pin safety; Obesity and trauma; Salvage of acetabular fixation in the longer term

The best method of managing a fracture of the distal humerus in a frail low-demand patient with osteoporotic bone remains controversial. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has been recommended for patients in whom open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is not possible. Conservative methods of treatment, including the ‘bag of bones’ technique (acceptance of displacement of the bony fragments and early mobilisation), are now rarely considered as they are believed to give a poor functional result.

We reviewed 40 elderly and low-demand patients (aged 50 to 93 years, 72% women) with a fracture of the distal humerus who had been treated conservatively at our hospital between March 2008 and December 2013, and assessed their short- and medium-term functional outcome.

In the short-term, the mean Broberg and Morrey score improved from 42 points (poor; 23 to 80) at six weeks after injury to 67 points (fair; 40 to 88) by three months.

In the medium-term, surviving patients (n = 20) had a mean Oxford elbow score of 30 points (7 to 48) at four years and a mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score of 38 points (0 to 75): 95% reported a functional range of elbow flexion. The cumulative rate of fracture union at one year was 53%. The mortality at five years approached 40%.

Conservative management of a fracture of the distal humerus in a low-demand patient only gives a modest functional result, but avoids the substantial surgical risks associated with primary ORIF or TEA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1132–8.

This conversation represents an attempt by several arthroplasty surgeons to critique several abstracts presented over the last year as well as to use them as a jumping off point for trying to figure out where they fit in into our current understanding of multiple issues in modern hip and knee arthroplasty.

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

As part of the national initiative to reduce waiting times for joint replacement surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust referred 224 patients to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 258 Kinemax TKRs were performed between November 2004 and August 2006. Of these, a total of 199 patients (232 TKRs, 90%) have been followed up for five years. This cohort was compared with 258 consecutive TKRs in 250 patients, performed at Cardiff and Vale Orthopaedic Centre (CAVOC) over a similar time period. The five year cumulative survival rate was 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.0 to 86.0) in the Weston-Super-Mare cohort and 95.0% (95% CI 90.2 to 98.2) in the CAVOC cohort with revision for any reason as the endpoint. The relative risk for revision at Weston-Super-Mare compared with CAVOC was 3.88 (p < 0.001). For implants surviving five years, the mean Oxford knee scores (OKS) and mean EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores were similar (OKS: Weston-Super-Mare 29 (2 to 47) vs CAVOC 29.8 (3 to 48), p = 0.61; EQ-5D: Weston-Super-Mare 0.53 (-0.38 to 1.00) vs CAVOC 0.55 (-0.32 to 1.00), p = 0.79). Patients with revised TKRs had significantly lower Oxford knee and EQ-5D scores (p < 0.001).

The results show a higher revision rate for patients operated at Weston-Super-Mare Treatment Centre, with a reduction in functional outcome and quality of life after revision. This further confirms that patients moved from one area to another for joint replacement surgery fare poorly.

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.

Most hip fractures treated with modern internal fixation techniques will heal. However, failures occasionally occur and require revision procedures. Salvage strategies employed during revision are based on whether the fixation failure occurs in the femoral neck, or in the intertrochanteric region. Patient age and remaining bone stock also influence decision making. For fractures in young patients, efforts are generally focused on preserving the native femoral head via osteotomies and repeat internal fixation. For failures in older patients, some kind of hip replacement is usually selected. Disuse osteopenia, deformity, bone loss, and stress-risers from previous internal fixation devices all pose technical challenges to successful reconstruction. Attention to detail is important in order to minimise complications. In the majority of cases, good outcomes have been reported for the various salvage strategies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:7–10.

The February 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Hip arthroplasty in Down syndrome; Bulk femoral autograft successful in acetabular reconstruction; Arthroplasty follow-up: is the internet the solution?; Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture; Salvage arthroplasty following failed hip internal fixation; Bone banking sensible financially and clinically; Allogenic blood transfusion in arthroplasty.