Aims. Bone stock restoration of acetabular bone defects using impaction bone grafting (IBG) in total hip arthroplasty may facilitate future re-revision in the event of failure of the reconstruction. We hypothesized that the acetabular bone defect during re-revision surgery after IBG was smaller than during the previous revision surgery. The clinical and radiological results of re-revisions with repeated use of IBG were also analyzed. Methods. In a series of 382 acetabular revisions using IBG and a cemented component, 45 hips (45 patients) that had failed due to aseptic loosening were re-revised between 1992 and 2016. Acetabular bone defects graded according to Paprosky during the first and the re-revision surgery were compared. Clinical and radiological findings were analyzed over time. Survival analysis was performed using a competing risk analysis. Results. Intraoperative bone defect during the initial revision included 19 Paprosky type IIIA and 29 Paprosky type IIIB hips; at re-revision, seven hips were Paprosky type II, 27 type IIIA and 11 were type IIIB (p = 0.020). The mean preoperative Harris Hip Score was 45.4 (SD 6.4), becoming 80.7 (SD 12.7) at the final follow-up. In all, 12 hips showed radiological migration of the acetabular component, and three required further revision surgery. The nine-year cumulative failure incidence (nine patients at risk) of the acetabular component for further revision surgery was 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9 to 21.0) for any cause, and 7.5% (95% CI 1.9 to 18.5) for aseptic loosening. Hips with a greater hip height had a higher risk for radiological migration (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17; p = 0.008). Conclusion. Bone stock restoration can be obtained using IBG in revision hip surgery. This technique is also useful in re-revision surgery; however, a better surgical technique including a closer distance to hip rotation centre could decrease the risk of radiological migration of the acetabular component. A longer follow-up is required to assess potential fixation deterioration. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):492–499

Aims. This single-centre observational study aimed to describe the results of extensive bone impaction grafting of the whole acetabular cavity in combination with an uncemented component in acetabular revisions performed in a standardized manner since 1993. Methods. Between 1993 and 2013, 370 patients with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 79 years) underwent acetabular revision surgery. Of these, 229 were more than ten years following surgery and 137 were more than 15 years. All revisions were performed with extensive use of morcellized allograft firmly impacted into the entire acetabular cavity, followed by insertion of an uncemented component with supplementary screw fixation. All types of reoperation were captured using review of radiographs and medical charts, combined with data from the local surgical register and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Results. Among patients with possible follow-up of ten and 15 years, 152 and 72 patients remained alive without revision of the acetabular component. The number of deaths was 61 and 50, respectively. Of those who died, six patients in each group had a reoperation performed before death. The number of patients with a reoperation was 22 for those with ten-year follow-up and 21 for those with 15 years of follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for aseptic loosening among all 370 patients in the cohort was 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1 to 98.5) after ten years and 92.8% (95% CI 89.2 to 96.6) after 15 years. Conclusion. Extensive bone impaction grafting combined with uncemented revision components appears to be a reliable method with favourable long-term survival. This technique offers the advantage of bone stock restoration and disputes the long-standing perception that uncemented components require > 50% of host bone contact for successful implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):198–204

Aims

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.

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

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

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