Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 94 patients undergoing first-stage revision of an infected knee prosthesis between September 2007 and January 2020 at a single institution. Radiographs and clinical records were used to assess and classify the incidence and causes of static spacer failure. Of the 94 cases, there were 19 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), ten revision TKAs (varus-valgus constraint), 20 hinged TKAs, one arthrodesis (nail), one failed spacer (performed elsewhere), 21 distal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasties, and 22 proximal tibial arthroplasties. Results. A total of 35/94 patients (37.2%) had spacer-related complications, of which 26/35 complications (74.3%) were because of mechanical failure of the spacer construct, while 9/35 (25.7%) were due to recurrence of infection. Risk factors for internal failure were a construct where the total intramedullary spacer length was less than twice the length of the central osseous defect (p = 0.009), where proximal or distal intraosseous spacer contact was < 10%, and after tibial tubercle osteotomy (p = 0.005). The incidence of spacer complications significantly increased the time to second stage: mean 157 days (42 to 458) in those without complications versus 227 days (11 to 528) with complications (p = 0.014). Conclusion. The failure rate of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is much higher than anticipated. Complications of the spacer significantly increased the time to second-stage revision. The risk of mechanical failure is significantly increased if the spacer is less than double the size of the segmental defect, or if inadequate reinforcement is inserted into the residual bone. These findings serve as a guide for surgeons to avoid mechanical complications with static spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1067–1073

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Aims

Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA).

Fractures around total knee arthroplasties pose a significant surgical challenge. Most can be managed with osteosynthesis and salvage of the replacement. The techniques of fixation of these fractures and revision surgery have evolved and so has the assessment of outcome. This specialty update summarises the current evidence for the classification, methods of fixation, revision surgery and outcomes of the management of periprosthetic fractures associated with total knee arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1489–96.