Revision surgery of the hip was performed on 114 hips using an extensively porous-coated femoral component. Of these, 95 hips (94 patients) had a mean follow-up of 10.2 years (5 to 17). No cortical struts were used and the cortical index and the femoral cortical width were measured at different levels.

There were two revisions for aseptic loosening. Survivorship at 12 years for all causes of failure was 96.9% (95% confidence interval 93.5 to 100) in the best-case scenario. Fibrous or unstable fixation was associated with major bone defects. The cortical index (p = 0.045) and the lateral cortical thickness (p = 0.008) decreased at the proximal level over time while the medial cortex increased (p = 0.001) at the proximal and distal levels. An increase in the proximal medial cortex was found in patients with an extended transtrochanteric osteotomy (p = 0.026) and in those with components shorter than 25 cm (p = 0.008).

The use of the extensively porous-coated femoral component can provide a solution for difficult cases in revision surgery. Radiological bony ingrowth is common. Although without clinical relevance at the end of follow-up, the thickness of the medial femoral cortex often increased while that of the lateral cortex decreased. In cases in which a shorter component was used and in those undertaken using an extended trochanteric osteotomy, there was a greater increase in thickness of the femoral cortex over time.

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.

Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

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.

We investigated 219 revisions of total hip replacement (THR) in 211 patients using a collarless double-taper cemented femoral component. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (30 to 90). The 137 long and 82 standard length stems were analysed separately. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 18), and no patient was lost to follow-up.

Survival of the long stems to re-revision for aseptic loosening at nine years was 98% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100), and for the standard stems was 93% (95% CI 85 to 100). At five years, one long stem was definitely loose radiologically and one standard stem was probably loose. Pre-operative femoral bone deficiency did not influence the results for the long stems, and corrective femoral osteotomy was avoided, as were significant subsidence, major stress shielding and persistent thigh pain.

Because of these reliable results, cemented long collarless double-taper femoral components are recommended for routine revision THR in older patients.

The conventional method for reconstructing acetabular bone loss at revision surgery includes using structural bone allograft. The disadvantages of this technique promoted the advent of metallic but biocompatible porous implants to fill bone defects enhancing initial and long-term stability of the acetabular component. This paper presents the indications, surgical technique and the outcome of using porous metal acetabular augments for reconstructing acetabular defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:103–8.

The treatment of osteochondral lesions and osteoarthritis remains an ongoing clinical challenge in orthopaedics. This review examines the current research in the fields of cartilage regeneration, osteochondral defect treatment, and biological joint resurfacing, and reports on the results of clinical and pre-clinical studies. We also report on novel treatment strategies and discuss their potential promise or pitfalls. Current focus involves the use of a scaffold providing mechanical support with the addition of chondrocytes or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or the use of cell homing to differentiate the organism’s own endogenous cell sources into cartilage. This method is usually performed with scaffolds that have been coated with a chemotactic agent or with structures that support the sustained release of growth factors or other chondroinductive agents. We also discuss unique methods and designs for cell homing and scaffold production, and improvements in biological joint resurfacing. There have been a number of exciting new studies and techniques developed that aim to repair or restore osteochondral lesions and to treat larger defects or the entire articular surface. The concept of a biological total joint replacement appears to have much potential.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:193–9.

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.

Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.

Structural allografts may be used to manage uncontained bone defects in revision total knee replacement (TKR). However, the availability of cadaver grafts is limited in some areas of Asia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcome of the use of femoral head allografts for the reconstruction of uncontained defects in revision TKR, focusing on complications related to the graft.

We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients (30 TKRs) with Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) type 3 bone defects, who underwent revision using femoral head allografts and stemmed components. The mean number of femoral heads used was 1.7 (1 to 3). The allograft–host junctions were packed with cancellous autograft.

At a mean follow-up of 76 months (38 to 136) the mean American Knee Society knee score improved from 37.2 (17 to 60) pre-operatively to 90 (83 to 100) (p < 0.001). The mean function score improved from 26.5 (0 to 50) pre-operatively to 81 (60 to 100) (p < 0.001). All the grafts healed to the host bone. The mean time to healing of the graft was 6.6 months (4 to 16). There have been no complications of collapse of the graft, nonunion, infection or implant loosening. No revision surgery was required.

The use of femoral head allografts in conjunction with a stemmed component and autogenous bone graft in revision TKR in patients with uncontained bone defects resulted in a high rate of healing of the graft with minimal complications and a satisfactory outcome. Longer follow-up is needed to observe the evolution of the graft.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:643–8.

Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients were reconstructed for aseptic loosening using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, morsellised femoral heads and cemented acetabular components. This series was reported previously at a mean follow-up of five years. We have extended this follow-up and now describe the outcome of 86 hips in 74 patients at a mean of ten years. There have been 19 revisions, comprising nine for infection, seven for aseptic loosening and three for dislocation. In surviving acetabular reconstructions, union of the graft had occurred in 64 of 67 hips (95.5%).

Survival analysis for all indications at ten years was 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 89) and 71.3% (95% CI 58 to 84) at 15 years.

Acetabular reconstruction using irradiated allograft and a cemented acetabular component is an effective method of reconstruction, providing results in the medium- to long-term comparable with those of reported series where non-irradiated freshly-frozen bone was used.

The use of impaction bone grafting during revision arthroplasty of the hip in the presence of cortical defects has a high risk of post-operative fracture. Our laboratory study addressed the effect of extramedullary augmentation and length of femoral stem on the initial stability of the prosthesis and the risk of fracture.

Cortical defects in plastic femora were repaired using either surgical mesh without extramedullary augmentation, mesh with a strut graft or mesh with a plate. After bone impaction, standard or long-stem Exeter prostheses were inserted, which were tested by cyclical loading while measuring defect strain and migration of the stem.

Compared with standard stems without extramedullary augmentation, defect strains were 31% lower with longer stems, 43% lower with a plate and 50% lower with a strut graft. Combining extramedullary augmentation with a long stem showed little additional benefit (p = 0.67). The type of repair did not affect the initial stability. Our results support the use of impaction bone grafting and extramedullary augmentation of diaphyseal defects after mesh containment.

We used a biodegradable mesh to convert an acetabular defect into a contained defect in six patients at total hip replacement. Their mean age was 61 years (46 to 69). The mean follow-up was 32 months (19 to 50). Before clinical use, the strength retention and hydrolytic in vitro degradation properties of the implants were studied in the laboratory over a two-year period. A successful clinical outcome was determined by the radiological findings and the Harris hip score.

All the patients had a satisfactory outcome and no mechanical failures or other complications were observed. No protrusion of any of the impacted grafts was observed beyond the mesh. According to our preliminary laboratory and clinical results the biodegradable mesh is suitable for augmenting uncontained acetabular defects in which the primary stability of the implanted acetabular component is provided by the host bone. In the case of defects of the acetabular floor this new application provides a safe method of preventing graft material from protruding excessively into the pelvis and the mesh seems to tolerate bone-impaction grafting in selected patients with primary and revision total hip replacement.

Migration of the acetabular component may give rise to oval-shaped bone defects in the acetabulum. The oblong implant is designed to fill these defects and achieve a stable cementless anchorage with no significant bone loss. We prospectively reviewed 133 oblong long oblique revision components at a mean follow-up of 9.74 years (0.6 to 14). All had been used in revisions for defects of type IIB to IIIB according to Paprosky. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 11 cases (8.3%) and deep infection in seven (5.3%). The probability of implant survival over a 12-year follow-up estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method gave a survival rate of 0.85% respectively 0.90% when deep infection was excluded as the endpoint.

Our study supports the use of these components in defects from IIB to IIIA. The main precondition for success is direct contact of more than half of the surface of the implant with the host acetabular bone.

Allografts of bone from the femoral head are often used in orthopaedic procedures. Although the donated heads are thoroughly tested microscopically before release by the bone bank, some surgeons take additional cultures in the operating theatre before implantation. There is no consensus about the need to take these cultures. We retrospectively assessed the clinical significance of the implantation of positive-cultured bone allografts. The contamination rate at retrieval of the allografts was 6.4% in our bone bank. Intra-operative cultures were taken from 426 femoral head allografts before implantation; 48 (11.3%) had a positive culture. The most frequently encountered micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Deep infection occurred in two of the 48 patients (4.2%). In only one was it likely that the same micro-organism caused the contamination and the subsequent infection.

In our study, the rate of infection in patients receiving positive-cultured allografts at implantation was not higher than the overall rate of infection in allograft surgery suggesting that the positive cultures at implantation probably represent contamination and that the taking of additional cultures is not useful.

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of revision of the femoral component of a total hip replacement using impaction bone grafting. Femoral revision with an impacted allograft was performed on 29 patients (31 hips). In all, 21 hips (68%) had grade III or IV femoral defects according to the Endo-Klinik classification. A total of 11 patients (12 hips) died before the ten-year follow-up period. Of the remaining patients, 18 patients (19 hips) were followed for 10 to 15 years; three further patients died during this time. None of the 31 stems underwent further revision of their stem. However, four stems showed extensive subsidence (> 15 mm). One of these patients had a femoral fracture that required fixation. Three other patients had a femoral fracture, two of which required fixation and the other was treated conservatively. Patients with a femoral fracture and/or severe subsidence had significantly more grade IV defects (six of seven hips; p = 0.004). One patient needed a closed reduction for dislocation.

Impaction allografting in revision hip surgery gives good long-term results for femora with grades I, II and III Endo-Klinik-classified defects. Extensive subsidence and femoral fractures were seen mainly in patients with grade IV damaged femora.

This study reports our experience with total elbow replacement for fused elbows.

Between 1982 and 2004, 13 patients with spontaneously ankylosed elbows were treated with a linked semi-constrained non-custom total elbow implant. The mean age at operation was 54 years (24 to 80). The stiffness was a result of trauma in ten elbows, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in one, and rheumatoid arthritis in two. The patients were followed for a mean of 12 years (2 to 26) and were evaluated clinically using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, as well as radiologically.

A mean arc from 37° of extension to 118° of flexion was achieved. Outcomes were good or excellent for seven elbows at final review. Ten patients felt better or much better after total elbow replacement. However, there was a high complication rate and re-operation was required in over half of patients. Two developed peri-operative soft-tissue breakdown requiring debridement. A muscle flap with skin grafting was used for soft-tissue cover in one. Revision was undertaken in one elbow following fracture of the ulnar component. Three patients developed a deep infection. Three elbows were manipulated under anaesthesia for post-operative stiffness. Prophylactic measures for heterotopic ossification were unsuccessful.

Total elbow replacement for the ankylosed elbow should be performed with caution. However, the outcome can be reliable in the long term and have a markedly positive impact on patient function and satisfaction. The high potential for complications must be considered. We consider total elbow replacement to be an acceptable procedure in selected patients with reasonable expectations.

We present our experience with a double-mobility acetabular component in 155 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 149 patients undertaken between 2005 and 2009, with particular emphasis on the incidence of further dislocation. The mean age of the patients was 77 years (42 to 89) with 59 males and 90 females. In all, five patients died and seven were lost to follow-up. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 113 hips, recurrent instability in 29, peri-prosthetic fracture in 11 and sepsis in two. The mean follow-up was 42 months (18 to 68). Three hips (2%) in three patients dislocated within six weeks of surgery; one of these dislocated again after one year. All three were managed successfully with closed reduction. Two of the three dislocations occurred in patients who had undergone revision for recurrent dislocation. All three were found at revision to have abductor deficiency. There were no dislocations in those revised for either aseptic loosening or sepsis.

These results demonstrate a good mid-term outcome for this component. In the 29 patients revised for instability, only two had a further dislocation, both of which were managed by closed reduction.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.

We report the results of 62 hips in 62 patients (17 males, 45 females) with mean age of 62.4 years (37 to 81), who underwent revision of the acetabular component of a total hip replacement due to aseptic loosening between May 2003 and November 2007. All hips had a Paprosky type IIIa acetabular defect. Acetabular revision was undertaken using a Procotyl E cementless oblong implant with modular side plates and a hook combined with impaction allografting.

At a mean follow-up of 60.5 months (36 to 94) with no patients lost to follow-up and one died due to unrelated illness, the complication rate was 38.7%. Complications included aseptic loosening (19 hips), deep infection (3 hips), broken hook and side plate (one hip) and a femoral nerve palsy (one hip). Further revision of the acetabular component was required in 18 hips (29.0%) and a further four hips (6.4%) are currently loose and awaiting revision.

We observed unacceptably high rates of complication and failure in our group of patients and cannot recommend this implant or technique.