Aims. The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique. Methods. We updated the outcomes of our previous study, based on 208 consecutive revisions using IBG and the X-change femoral revision system in combination with a cemented polished stem, performed in our tertiary care institute between 1991 and 2007. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine the survival rate of the revisions with endpoint revision for any reason and aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes were radiological loosening and patient-reported outcome measures. Results. Mean age at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was 64.9 years (30 to 86). The most prevalent diagnosis for the femoral revision was aseptic loosening. At review in May 2021, 81 patients (85 hips) were still alive and 118 patients (120 hips; 58%) had died. Three patients (3 hips; 1%) were lost to follow-up at 11, 15, and 16 years after surgery, respectively. Data of all deceased and lost patients were included until final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 13.4 years (0 to 28). During the follow-up, 22 re-revisions were performed. The most common reason for re-revision was infection (n = 12; 54%). The survival with endpoint re-revision for any reason was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 91) at 20 years and 74% (95% CI 43 to 89) at 25 years after surgery. The survival for endpoint re-revision for aseptic loosening was 97% (95% CI 91 to 99) after both 20 and 25 years. Conclusion. We conclude that femoral IBG is a valuable technique that can reconstitute femoral bone loss in the long term. After 25 years of follow-up, few re-revisions for aseptic loosening were required. Also, the overall revision rate is very acceptable at a long follow-up. This technique is especially attractive for younger patients facing femoral revisions with extensive bone loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1039–1046

We identified 1305 femoral impaction bone grafting revisions using the Exeter stem performed between 1989 and 2002 in 30 hospitals throughout Sweden. There were 1188 patients with a mean age of 71 years (29 to 94) followed up for between five and 18 years. The participating departments reported 70 further revisions in total, of which 57 could also be identified on the Swedish National Arthroplasty Registry. Kaplan-Meier survivorship for all causes of failure was 94.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 96) for women and 94.7% (95% CI, 92 to 96) for men at 15 years. Survivorship at 15 years for aseptic loosening was 99.1% (95% CI 98.4 to 99.5), for infection 98.6% (95% CI 97.6 to 99.2), for subsidence 99.0% (95% CI 98.2 to 99.4) and for fracture 98.7% (95% CI 97.9 to 99.2). Statistically significant predictors of failure were the year in which revision was conducted (p < 0.001). The number of previous revisions was slightly above the level of signifance (p = 0.056). Age, gender, the length of the stem and previous septic loosening were not predictors of failure (p = 0.213, p = 0.399, p = 0.337, p = 0.687, respectively). The difference in survivorship between high- and low-volume departments was only 3% at ten years. We conclude that impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem has an excellent long-term survivorship following revision arthroplasty. The technique of impaction grafting appears to be reliable, can be learned rapidly and produces a predictably low incidence of aseptic loosening

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. . Patients and Methods. Between 1987 and 2005, 705 revision total hip arthroplasties (56 bilateral) were performed with femoral impaction grafting using a cemented femoral stem. All surviving patients were prospectively followed for a mean of 14.7 years (9.8 to 28.3) with no loss to follow-up. By the time of the final review, 404 patients had died. Results. There were 76 further revisions (10.8%) involving the stem; seven for aseptic loosening, 23 for periprosthetic fracture, 24 for infection, one for malposition, one for fracture of the stem and 19 cement-in-cement exchanges of the stem during acetabular revision. The 20-year survival rate for the entire series was 98.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.8 to 99.8) with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, and 87.7% (95% CI 82.8 to 92.6) for revision for any reason. Survival improved with the evolution of the technique, although this was not statistically significant due to the overall low rate of further revision. Conclusion. This is the largest series of revision total hip arthroplasties with femoral impaction grafting, and the results support the continued use of this technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1611–19

Loss of bone stock is a major problem in revision surgery of the hip. Impaction bone grafting of the femur is frequently used when dealing with deficient bone stock. In this retrospective study a consecutive series of 68 patients (69 hips) who had revision of a hip replacement with femoral impaction grafting were reviewed. Irradiated bone allograft was used in all hips. Radiological measurement of subsidence of the stem, incorporation of the graft and remodelling was carried out and showed incorporation of the graft in 26 of 69 hips (38%). However, there was no evidence of trabecular remodelling. Moderate subsidence of 5 mm to 10 mm occurred in ten hips (14.5%), and massive subsidence of > 10 mm in five (7.2%). The results of this study are less favourable than those of others describing studies of revision of the femoral stem using impaction bone grafting. The absence of the characteristic changes of graft remodelling noted in other series raises the question as to whether irradiated bone graft may be a significant factor influencing the post-operative outcome

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.

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.

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution. Methods. All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening. Results. The mean age of the patients at the time of the initial THA was 38.6 years (SD 9.3). The mean follow-up of the THA was 8.7 years (2.0 to 31.5). The rate of survival for all primary THAs, acetabular components only, and femoral components only at 20 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason, was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5 to 72.2), 69.1% (95% CI 63.0 to 74.4), and 83.2% (95% CI 78.1 to 87.3), respectively. A total of 138 revisions were performed. The mean age at the time of revision was 48.2 years (23 to 72). Survival of all subsequent revision procedures, revised acetabular, and revised femoral components at 15 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason was 70.3% (95% CI 56.1 to 80.7), 69.7% (95% CI 54.3 to 80.7), and 76.2% (95% CI 57.8 to 87.4), respectively. A Girdlestone excision arthroplasty was required in six of 860 patients (0.7%). Conclusion. The long-term outcome of cemented primary and subsequent revision THA is promising in these young patients. We showed that our philosophy of using impaction bone grafting in patients with acetabular and femoral defects is a very suitable option when treating young patients. Surgeons should realize that knowledge of the outcome of subsequent revision surgery, which is inevitable in young patients, must be communicated to this group of patients prior to their initial THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):368–375

We report the initial results of an ongoing randomised, prospective study on migration of the Exeter and Elite Plus femoral stems after impaction allografting, as measured by radiostereometry.

Clinically, the impaction technique gave good results for both stems. The mean subsidence in the first year was 1.30 mm and 0.20 mm for the Exeter and the Elite Plus stems, respectively. In the second year, the Exeter stem continued to subside further by a mean of 0.42 mm, while the Elite Plus stem did not do so. Subsidence of the Exeter stem correlated with deficiency of bone stock as graded on the Gustilo and Pasternak scale. This correlation was not found for the Elite Plus stem. None of the other parameters which were studied predisposed to subsidence. There was no significant association between the amount of subsidence and the radiological appearance of the graft for either stem. Our findings do not support the theory that radial compression, due to subsidence of the Exeter stem, is the essential stimulus for remodelling in impaction allografting.

We report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 208 consecutive femoral revision arthroplasties performed in 202 patients (119 women, 83 men) between March 1991 and December 2007 using the X-change Femoral Revision System, fresh-frozen morcellised allograft and a cemented polished Exeter stem. All patients were followed prospectively. The mean age of the patients at revision was 65 years (30 to 86). At final review in December 2013 a total of 130 patients with 135 reconstructions (64.9%) were alive and had a non re-revised femoral component after a mean follow-up of 10.6 years (4.7 to 20.9). One patient was lost to follow-up at six years, and their data were included up to this point. Re-operation for any reason was performed in 33 hips (15.9%), in 13 of which the femoral component was re-revised (6.3%). The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 52 (19 to 95) (n = 73) and improved to 80 (22 to 100) (n = 161) by the last follow-up. Kaplan–Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 90.2 to 97.4) at ten years; with femoral re-revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint it was 99.4% (95% CI 95.7 to 99.9); with femoral re-operation for any reason as the endpoint it was 84.5% (95% CI 78.3 to 89.1); and with subsidence ≥ 5 mm it was 87.3% (95% CI 80.5 to 91.8). Femoral revision with the use of impaction allograft bone grafting and a cemented polished stem results in a satisfying survival rate at a mean of ten years’ follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:771–9

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

We developed a method of applying vibration to the impaction bone grafting process and assessed its effect on the mechanical properties of the impacted graft. Washed morsellised bovine femoral heads were impacted into shear test rings. A range of frequencies of vibration was tested, as measured using an accelerometer housed in a vibration chamber. Each shear test was repeated at four different normal loads to generate stress-strain curves. The Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope from which shear strength and interlocking values are derived was plotted for each test. The experiments were repeated with the addition of blood in order to replicate a saturated environment. Graft impacted with the addition of vibration at all frequencies showed improved shear strength when compared with impaction without vibration, with 60 Hz giving the largest effect. Under saturated conditions the addition of vibration was detrimental to the shear strength of the aggregate. The civil-engineering principles of particulate settlement and interlocking also apply to impaction bone grafting. Although previous studies have shown that vibration may be beneficial in impaction bone grafting on the femoral side, our study suggests that the same is not true in acetabular revision

Aims. The management of acetabular defects at the time of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is a challenge. This study presents the results of a long-term follow-up study of the use of irradiated allograft bone in acetabular reconstruction. Patients and Methods. Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients underwent acetabular reconstruction for aseptic loosening, using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, and morsellized femoral heads and a cemented acetabular component. A total of 55 men and 55 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (26 to 97) at the time of revision surgery are included in this study. Results. At a mean follow-up of 16.9 years, there had been 23 revisions (18.7%), including ten for infection, eight for aseptic loosening, and three for dislocation. Of the 66 surviving hips (58 patients) that could be reassessed, 50 hips (42 patients; 75.6%) were still functioning satisfactorily. Union of the graft had occurred in all hips with a surviving implant. Survival analysis for all indications was 80.6% at 15 years (55 patients at risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) 71.1 to 87.2) and 73.7% at 20 years (eight patients at risk, 95% CI 61.6 to 82.5). Conclusion. Acetabular reconstruction using frozen, irradiated, and morsellized allograft bone and a cemented acetabular component is an effective method of treatment. It gives satisfactory long-term results and is comparable to other types of reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1449–54

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a lateral rim mesh on the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients, aged 50 years or younger. Patients and Methods. We compared a study group of 235 patients (257 hips) who received a primary THA with the use of impaction bone grafting (IBG) with an additional lateral rim mesh with a group of 306 patients (343 hips) who received IBG in the absence of a lateral rim mesh during the same period from 1988 to 2015. In the mesh group, there were 74 male and 183 female patients, with a mean age of 35 years (13 to 50). In the no-mesh group, there were 173 male and 170 female patients, with a mean age of 38 years (12.6 to 50). Cox regression analyses were performed to study the effect of a lateral rim mesh on acetabular component survival. Kaplan–Meier analyses with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed to estimate the survival of the acetabular implant. Results. The hazard ratio for the use of lateral rim mesh, adjusted for potential confounders, for acetabular revision for any reason was 0.50 (95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; p = 0.31) and for acetabular revision for aseptic loosening was 0.29 (95% CI 0.020 to 4.04; p = 0.35). The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a ten-year survival for aseptic loosening of the acetabular of 98% (95% CI 95 to 100, n = 65 at risk) in the mesh group and 94% (89 to 98, n = 76 at risk) in the no-mesh group. The 15-year survival for aseptic acetabular loosening was 90% (81 to 100, n = 35 at risk) in the mesh group and 85% (77 to 94, n = 45 at risk) in the no-mesh group (p = 0.23). Conclusion. This study shows that the use of a lateral rim mesh in primary THA in young patients is not associated with a higher risk of revision of the acetabular component. Therefore, we consider a lateral rim mesh combined with IBG to be effective in reconstructing segmental acetabular defects in primary THA

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82). . We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision. . A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99). The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44

Deficiencies of acetabular bone stock at revision hip replacement were reconstructed with two different types of allograft using impaction bone grafting and a Burch-Schneider reinforcement ring. We compared a standard frozen non-irradiated bone bank allograft (group A) with a freeze-dried irradiated bone allograft, vitalised with autologous marrow (group B). We studied 78 patients (79 hips), of whom 87% (69 hips) had type III acetabular defects according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification at a mean of 31.4 months (14 to 51) after surgery. At the latest follow-up, the mean Harris hip score was 69.9 points (13.5 to 97.1) in group A and 71.0 points (11.5 to 96.5) in group B. Each hip showed evidence of trabeculation and incorporation of the allograft with no acetabular loosening. These results suggest that the use of an acetabular reinforcement ring and a living composite of sterile allograft and autologous marrow appears to be a method of reconstructing acetabular deficiencies which gives comparable results to current forms of treatment

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

We report the results of the revision of 123 acetabular components for aseptic loosening treated by impaction bone grafting using frozen, morsellised, irradiated femoral heads and cemented sockets. This is the first large series using this technique to be reported. A survivorship of 88% with revision as the end-point after a mean of five years is comparable with that of other series

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

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied