Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types. Cite this article:
Failure of fixation is a common problem in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures around the hip. The reinforcement of bone stock or of fixation of the implant may be a solution. Our study assesses the existing evidence for the use of bone substitutes in the management of these fractures in osteoporotic patients. Relevant publications were retrieved through Medline research and further scrutinised. Of 411 studies identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 12 experimental and ten clinical reports. The clinical studies were evaluated with regard to their level of evidence. Only four were prospective and randomised. Polymethylmethacrylate and calcium-phosphate cements increased the primary stability of the implant-bone construct in all experimental and clinical studies, although there was considerable variation in the design of the studies. In randomised, controlled studies, augmentation of intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur with calcium-phosphate cement was associated with poor long-term results. There was a lack of data on the long-term outcome for trochanteric fractures. Because there were only a few, randomised, controlled studies, there is currently poor evidence for the use of bone cement in the treatment of fractures of the hip.
There are three basic concepts that are important to the biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. First, the outer diameter of the screw determines pullout strength, while the inner diameter determines fatigue strength. Secondly, when inserting a pedicle screw, the dorsal cortex of the spine should not be violated and the screws on each side should converge and be of good length. Thirdly, fixation can be augmented in cases of severe osteoporosis or revision. A trajectory parallel or caudal to the superior endplate can minimise breakage of the screw from repeated axial loading. Straight insertion of the pedicle screw in the mid-sagittal plane provides the strongest stability. Rotational stability can be improved by adding transverse connectors. The indications for their use include anterior column instability, and the correction of rotational deformity.
Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface. It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation.
