Instability is a common indication for early revision after both primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), accounting for up to 20% in the literature. The number of TKAs performed annually continues to climb exponentially, thus having an effective algorithm for treatment is essential. This relies on a thorough pre- and intra-operative assessment of the patient. The underlying cause of the instability must be identified initially and subsequently, the surgeon must be able to balance the flexion and extension gaps and be comfortable using a variety of constrained implants.

This review describes the assessment of the unstable TKA, and the authors’ preferred form of treatment for these difficult cases where the source of instability is often multifactorial.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):116–19.

Although the vast majority of patients that undergo total knee replacement have satisfactory outcomes with a generally low complication rate, occasionally a patient will be encountered that has had multiple failed surgeries, and now reaches a crossroad as to whether limb salvage will be acceptable or not.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):122–4.

Most hip fractures treated with modern internal fixation techniques will heal. However, failures occasionally occur and require revision procedures. Salvage strategies employed during revision are based on whether the fixation failure occurs in the femoral neck, or in the intertrochanteric region. Patient age and remaining bone stock also influence decision making. For fractures in young patients, efforts are generally focused on preserving the native femoral head via osteotomies and repeat internal fixation. For failures in older patients, some kind of hip replacement is usually selected. Disuse osteopenia, deformity, bone loss, and stress-risers from previous internal fixation devices all pose technical challenges to successful reconstruction. Attention to detail is important in order to minimise complications. In the majority of cases, good outcomes have been reported for the various salvage strategies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:7–10.

Pelvic discontinuity represents a rare but challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. It is most commonly encountered during revision total hip replacement, but can also result from an iatrogentic acetabular fracture during hip replacement. The general principles in management of pelvic discontinuity include restoration of the continuity between the ilium and the ischium, typically with some form of plating. Bone grafting is frequently required to restore pelvic bone stock. The acetabular component is then impacted, typically using an uncemented, trabecular metal component. Fixation with multiple supplemental screws is performed. For larger defects, a so-called ‘cup–cage’ reconstruction, or a custom triflange implant may be required. Pre-operative CT scanning can greatly assist in planning and evaluating the remaining bone stock available for bony ingrowth. Generally, good results have been reported for constructs that restore stability to the pelvis and allow some form of biologic ingrowth.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:109–13.

Options for the treatment of subcapital femoral neck fractures basically fall into two categories: internal fixation or arthroplasty (either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty). Historically, the treatment option has been driven by a diagnosis-related approach (non-displaced neck fractures versus displaced neck fractures). More recently, the traditional paradigm has changed. Instead of a diagnosis-related approach, it has become more of a patient-related approach. Treatment options take in to consideration the patient’s age, functional demands, and individual risk profile. A simple algorithm can be helpful in terms of directing the treatment. Non-displaced fractures, regardless of age of the patient, should be treated with closed reduction and internal fixation. For displaced femoral neck fractures, the treatment differs depending on the age of the patient. The younger patient should be treated with urgent ORIF with the goal of an anatomic reduction. For displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly, cognitive function should be determined. For those who are cognitively functioning, total hip arthroplasty appears to be the best option. In the cognitively dysfunctional, a bipolar hemiarthroplasty or a total hip arthroplasty with use of larger heads (32 mm or 36 mm) and/or constrained sockets are a viable option.

Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies. Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup, typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available. Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability. The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned, it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.

Many tumors metastasise to bone, therefore, pathologic fracture and impending pathologic fractures are common reasons for orthopedic consultation. Having effective treatment strategies is important to avoid complications, and relieve pain and preserve function. Thorough pre-operative evaluation is recommended for medical optimization and to ensure that the lesion is in fact a metastasis and not a primary bone malignancy. For impending fractures, various scoring systems have been proposed to determine the risk of fracture, and therefore the need for prophylactic stabilisation. Lower score lesions can often be treated with radiation, while more problematic lesions may require internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation is generally preferred due to favorable biomechanics. Arthroplasty may be required for lesions with massive bony destruction where internal fixation attempts are likely to fail. Radiation may also be useful postoperatively to minimise construct failure due to tumor progression.