A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.

The clinical and radiological results of 50 consecutive acetabular reconstructions in 48 patients using impaction grafting have been retrospectively reviewed. A 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and Apapore 60, a synthetic bone graft substitute, was used in all cases. There were 13 complex primary and 37 revision procedures with a mean follow-up of five years (3.4 to 7.6). The clinical survival rate was 100%, with improvements in the mean Harris Hip Scores for pain and function. Radiologically, 30 acetabular grafts showed evidence of incorporation, ten had radiolucent lines and two acetabular components migrated initially before stabilising.

Acetabular reconstruction in both primary and revision surgery using a 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground, irriadiated bone and Apapore 60 appears to be a reliable method of managing acetabular defects. Longer follow-up will be required to establish whether this technique is as effective as using fresh-frozen allograft.

Objectives. Fractures of the proximal femur are a common clinical problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies: a screw, a helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods. Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm. 3. , 0.16 g/cm. 3. and 0.24 g/cm. 3. ). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results. The deployable crucifix design (X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the dynamic hip screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in bone substitute material representative of osteoporotic bone (0.16 g/cm. 3. polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm. 3. density substrate, the crucifix design (X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm. 3. density bone substitute. Conclusions. Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in bone substitute material with density representative of osteoporotic bone. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the X-Bolt, although not consistently significant by statistical analysis. Cite this article: J. D. Gosiewski, T. P. Holsgrove, H. S. Gill. The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:270–276. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

Aims

Periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are two of the major reasons for revision surgery of cementless implants. Optimal implant fixation with minimal bone damage is challenging in this procedure. This pilot study investigates whether vibratory implant insertion is gentler compared to consecutive single blows for acetabular component implantation in a surrogate polyurethane (PU) model.

Aims

Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used.

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine the implant accuracy of custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants offer an option to achieve a reconstruction in cases with severe acetabular bone loss. By analyzing implant deviation in CT and radiograph imaging and correlating early clinical complications, we aimed to optimize the usage of custom-made implants.

Glass ionomer cement (Ionocem) was developed for use in bone surgery and is reported to be notably biocompatible. Between 1991 and 1994 we performed revision operations for aseptic loosening of arthroplasties of the hip on 45 patients using this material in its granulate form (Ionogran) mixed with homologous bone as a bone substitute. Of these 45 patients, 42 were followed up for a mean of 42 months. Early reloosening of the acetabular component has occurred in ten after a mean of 30 months. Histological examination showed large deposits of aluminium in the adjacent connective tissue and bone. Osteoblastic function and bone mineralisation were clearly inhibited. The serum levels of aluminium were also increased. The toxic damage at the bone interface caused by high local levels of aluminium must be seen as an important factor in the high rate of early reloosening. Our findings cast doubt on the biocompatibility of this material and we do not recommend continuation of its further use in orthopaedic surgery

Aims

Cementless acetabular components rely on press-fit fixation for initial stability. In certain cases, initial stability is more difficult to obtain (such as during revision). No current study evaluates how a surgeon’s impaction technique (mallet mass, mallet velocity, and number of strikes) may affect component fixation. This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1) how does impaction technique affect a) bone strain generation and deterioration (and hence implant stability) and b) seating in different density bones?; and 2) can an impaction technique be recommended to minimize risk of implant loosening while ensuring seating of the acetabular component?

Objectives

Using a simple classification method, we aimed to estimate the collapse rate due to osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) in order to develop treatment guidelines for joint-preserving surgeries.

Aims

Femoral impaction bone grafting was first developed in 1987 using morselised cancellous bone graft impacted into the femoral canal in combination with a cemented, tapered, polished stem. We describe the evolution of this technique and instrumentation since that time.

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.

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 long-term results of grafting with hydroxyapatite granules for acetabular deficiency in revision total hip replacement are not well known. We have evaluated the results of revision using a modular cup with hydroxyapatite grafting for Paprosky type 2 and 3 acetabular defects at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed 49 acetabular revisions at a mean of 135 months (120 to 178). There was one type 2B, ten 2C, 28 3A and ten 3B hips. With loosening as the endpoint, the survival rate was 74.2% (95% confidence interval 58.3 to 90.1). Radiologically, four of the type 3A hips (14%) and six of the type 3B hips (60%) showed aseptic loosening with collapse of the hydroxyapatite layer, whereas no loosening occurred in type 2 hips. There was consolidation of the hydroxyapatite layer in 33 hips (66%). Loosening was detected in nine of 29 hips (31%) without cement and in one of 20 hips (5%) with cement (p = 0.03, Fisher’s exact probability test). The linear wear and annual wear rate did not correlate with loosening.

These results suggest that the long-term results of hydroxyapatite grafting with cement for type 2 and 3A hips are encouraging.

In revision total hip replacement, bone loss can be managed by impacting porous bone chips. In order to guarantee sufficient mechanical strength, the bone chips have to be compacted. The aim of this study was to determine in an in vitro simulation whether the use of a pneumatic hammer leads to higher primary stability than manual impaction. Bone mass characteristics were measured by force and distance variation of a penetrating punch, which was lowered into a plastic cup filled with bone chips. From these measurements bulk density, contact stiffness, impaction hardness and penetration resistance were calculated for different durations of impaction.

We found that the pneumatic method reached higher values of impaction hardness, contact stiffness and bulk density suggesting an increase in stability of the implant. No significant differences were found between the two different methods concerning the penetration resistance. The pneumatic method might reduce the risk of fracture in vivo, as force peaks are smaller and applied for a shorter period. Results from manual impaction showed higher variability and depend much on the experience of the surgeon. The pneumatic hammer is a suitable tool to standardise the impaction process.

We biomechanically investigated whether the standard dynamic hip screw (DHS) or the DHS blade achieves better fixation in bone with regard to resistance to pushout, pullout and torsional stability. The experiments were undertaken in an artificial bone substrate in the form of polyurethane foam blocks with predefined mechanical properties. Pushout tests were also repeated in cadaveric femoral heads. The results showed that the DHS blade outperformed the DHS with regard to the two most important characteristics of implant fixation, namely resistance to pushout and rotational stability.

We concluded that the DHS blade was the superior implant in this study.