The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The literature is full of articles and commentary supporting one method over another. Options include open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Treatment options in an active 65-year-old are exceptionally controversial given the fact that people in this middle-aged group still wished to remain active and athletic in many circumstances. A hemiarthroplasty offers the advantage of a greater range of motion, however, this has a high incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion and this is a very common reason for revision of that hemiarthroplasty for fracture to a reverse shoulder replacement. One recent study showed a 73% incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion in shoulders that had a revised hemiarthroplasty to a reverse shoulder replacement. Progressive glenoid wear and erosion is also a risk after a hemiarthroplasty in the younger patient, especially someone who is young and active. In addition, studies show shorter operative time in hemiarthroplasty. The range of motion is highly dependent on proper tuberosity healing and this is often one of the most challenging aspects of the surgical procedure as well as the healing process. A reverse shoulder replacement in general has less range of motion compared to a hemiarthroplasty with anatomically healed tuberosities, however, the revision rate is lower compared to a hemiarthroplasty. (This is likely related to few were options for revision). The results after a reverse shoulder replacement may not be as dependent on tuberosity healing, however, importantly the tuberosities do need to be repaired and the results are significantly better if there is healing of the greater tuberosity, giving some infraspinatus and/or teres minor function to the shoulder. Complete lack of tuberosity healing forces the shoulder into obligate internal rotation with attempted elevation and this can be functionally disabling. Academic discussion is beginning surrounding the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis in a primary setting as it is believed that the glenosphere and baseplate may have greater longevity than a polyethylene glenoid. Along with this discussion, we will likely see greater application of the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of fracture for younger patients.

In general, open reduction internal fixation should still remain the treatment of choice in the setting of a fracture that can be fixed. However, a strong argument can be made that if an arthroplasty is necessary, a reverse shoulder replacement is the implant of choice.

Displaced proximal humerus fractures remain a difficult clinical problem, and techniques as diverse as percutaneous pinning, locked plating, intramedullary nailing, and shoulder arthroplasty have been proposed. In recent years, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a very popular option to fix just about any fracture. However, RTSA is not without risk, with complications ranging from infection, instability, acromial stress fractures, aseptic loosening, notching and more. In a 2017 study on 39 patients, Tokish et al. compared non-operative treatment to reverse shoulder arthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures. There was no difference in pain, range of motion or outcome scores between the two groups. Among the patients who underwent RTSA, there was no difference between early (<30 days) and late (>30 days) surgery suggesting that it could be safe to attempt a non-operative trial in most patients and see how they do. This is also supported by a 2016 study by Sanchez-Sotelo et al. in which they compared 18 patients with primary RTSA to 26 patients with failed ORIF who underwent salvage RTSA. There was no difference in ASES score, ROM and overall satisfaction between both groups suggesting that an ORIF can be attempted in many patients without the fear of compromising a revision RTSA. And although RTSA may provide more predictable results, in a properly selected patient, a well-executed hemiarthroplasty can outperform an RTSA. In a study from Molé et al., 38 patients were randomised to either RTSA or to a hemiarthroplasty. In the hemiarthroplasty group, half of the patients had <90 degrees of forward elevation and half the patients had >120 degrees of forward elevation showing a bi-modal distribution dependent on tuberosity healing. In the RTSA group, however, while having an average of 115 degrees of forward elevation, 68% of patients had less than 120 degrees of forward elevation. While RTSA is a great tool to treat complex displaced comminuted fractures in elderly patients with poor bone quality, it should not be blindly applied to all fractures types and all patients.

The advent of modern anatomic shoulder arthroplasty occurred in the 1990's with the revelation that the humeral head dimensions had a fixed ratio between the head diameter and height. As surgeons moved from the concept of balancing soft tissue tension by using variable neck lengths for a given humeral head diameter, a flawed concept based on lower extremity reconstruction, improvements in range of motion and function were immediately observed. Long term outcome has validated this guiding principle for anatomic shoulder replacement with improved longevity of implants, improved patient and surgeon expectations and satisfaction with results.

Once the ideal humeral head prosthesis is identified, and its position prepared, the surgeon must use a method to fix the position of the head that is correct in three dimensions and has the security to withstand patient activities and provide maximal longevity. Based again on lower extremity concepts, long stems were the standard of care, initially with cement, and now, almost universally without cement for a primary shoulder replacement. The incredibly low revision rates for humeral stem aseptic loosening shifted much of the attempted innovation to the challenges on the glenoid side of the reconstruction.

However, glenoid problems including revision surgery, infections, periprosthetic fractures, and other complications often required the removal of the humeral stem. And, in many cases, the overall results of the procedure and the patient's long-term outcome was affected by the difficulty in removing the stem, leading surgeons to compromise the revision procedure, avoid revision surgery, or add to the overall morbidity with humeral fractures and substantial bone loss.

With improved technology, including bone ingrowth methods, better matching of the proximal stem geometry to the humerus, and an understanding that the center of rotation (torque) on the humeral component is at the level of the humeral osteotomy, shorter stems and stemless humeral components were developed, now more than 10 years ago, primarily in Europe.

With more than a decade of experience, our European colleagues have shown us that stemless humeral component replacement with a device that has both cortical and cancellous fixation is as effective as a stemmed device, easier to implant as well as revise when needed. The short-term results of the cancellous fixation stemless devices are acceptable, but longer follow-up is needed.

Currently, the most widely used humeral components in the USA are short stem components, although the recent FDA approval of numerous stemless devices has initiated a shift from short stems to stemless devices. The truth is, short stem devices have a firm position in the USA surgeons' armamentarium today due to regulatory restrictions. A decade ago, without a predicate on the market, it was not conceivable that a stemless device that was already gaining popularity in Europe would be able to get 510K approval, and therefore would require a lengthy and expensive FDA IDE process. However, shorter stems had already been approved in the USA, as long as the stem length was 7 centimeters, matching the market predicate.

Now, in 2018, based on evidence and outcomes, stemless humeral components should be the first choice when treating primary osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Short stem or longer stem devices should be reserved for those cases where stemless fixation is not possible, which is less than 10% of patients with primary OA of the shoulder.

Humeral component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty has been rare with contemporary design systems. Are stemless implant designs superior to contemporary short-stem humeral component technologies? This presentation will provide information to address this question.

Stemless technology became available in Europe and other parts of the world in 2004 and 2005 compared to only recently in the United States of America. Short-stem designs have developed with third generation implant systems.

Advantages of short-stem implant designs include the following: the humeral canal facilitates proper head component position; modularity between the stem and head allows for modifications of version, inclination and offset to match the native anatomy and these designs are convertible for easier revision.

This debate will demonstrate that short-stem implant designs provide the surgeon with more versatility to provide our patients with the best outcomes.

There is a large and growing population of patients with shoulder arthritis that are over 70 years old. Many of these patients live alone and sling immobilization after shoulder arthroplasty is problematic. Other than improved internal rotation, there are limited benefits of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty compared to reverse arthroplasty.

Anatomic arthroplasty is associated with longer OR time, longer recovery with need for assistance to allow the subscapularis to heal, and more challenging glenoid exposure. The reverse arthroplasty is a faster operation without the need for subscapularis healing and the sphere provides a more forgiving implant position. Additional benefits of reverse arthroplasty include better ability to manage glenoid bone loss and joint subluxation.

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry shows that within the first year of surgery the rate of revision of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty is less than reverse arthroplasty. However, after one year, the overall revision rate of reverse arthroplasty is less than anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

Therefore, increased technical difficulty of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty together with concerns of subscapularis insufficiency, glenoid loosening, and lack of strong evidence of superiority do not warrant changing from reverse for patients over 70 years old.

Severe glenoid bone loss in patients with osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff is associated with posterior glenoid bone loss and posterior humeral subluxation. Management of severe glenoid bone loss during shoulder arthroplasty is controversial and technically challenging and options range from humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomic shoulder replacement with glenoid bone grafting or augmented glenoid component implantation, to reverse replacement with reaming to correct version or structural bone grafting or metallic augmentation of the bone deficiency.

Shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complications and revisions. Hemiarthroplasty has limited benefit for pain relief and function especially if eccentric glenoid wear exists. Bone loss with >15 degrees of retroversion likely requires version correction include bone-grafting, augmented glenoid components, or reverse total shoulder replacement. Asymmetric reaming may improve version but is limited to 15 degrees of version correction in order to preserve subchondral bone and glenoid bone vault depth. Bone-grafting of glenoid wear and defects has had mixed results with graft-related complications, periprosthetic radiolucent lines, and glenoid component failure of fixation. Implantation of an augmented wedge or step polyethylene glenoid component improves joint version while preserving subchondral bone, but is technically demanding and with minimal short term clinical follow-up. A Mayo study demonstrated roughly 50% of patients with posteriorly augmented polyethylene had radiolucent lines and 1/3 had posterior subluxation. Another wedge polyethylene design had 66% with bone ingrowth around polyethylene fins at 3 years. Long term outcomes are unknown for these new wedge augmented glenoid components. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoids many risks of anatomic replacement glenoid component fixation and stability but is associated with a high complication rate (15%) including neurologic and baseplate loosening and often requires structural bone grafting behind the baseplate with suboptimal outcomes or metallic augmented baseplates with limited evidence and short term outcomes. Reverse replacement with baseplate bone grafting or metal augmentation is technically challenging due to limited native glenoid bone stock available for baseplate component ingrowth and long term fixation. Failure to correct glenoid superior inclination and restore neutral version within 10 degrees increases the risks of reverse baseplate failure of fixation, pull out, and failure of reverse replacement. Reverse baseplate failure rates in patients with severe glenoid bone loss and concomitant glenoid bone grafting range from 5–11%. The minimum native glenoid bony contact with the baseplate is unknown but likely is approximately 1cm of native bone contacting a central ingrowth post and a minority (∼15–25%) of native glenoid contacting the backside of the baseplate. Failure to correct posterior bone loss can lead to retroversion of the baseplate, reduced external rotation, posterior scapular notching, and posteromedial polyethylene wear. In summary, shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complication and revision.

Shoulder arthritis in the young adult is a deceptive title. The literature is filled with articles that separate outcomes based on an arbitrary age threshold and attempt to provide recommendations for management and even potential criteria for implanting one strategy over another using age as the primary determinant. However, under the age of 50, as few as one out of five patients will have arthritis that can be accurately classified as osteoarthritis. Other conditions such as post-traumatic arthritis, post-surgical arthritis including capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and rheumatoid arthritis create a mosaic of pathologic bone and soft tissue changes in our younger patients that distort the conclusions regarding “shoulder arthritis” in the young adult. In addition, we are now seeing more patients with unique conditions that are still poorly understood, including arthritis of the pharmacologically performance-enhanced shoulder.

Early arthritis in the young adult is often recognised at the time of arthroscopic surgery performed for other preoperative indications. Palliative treatment is the first option, which equals “debridement.” If the procedure fails to resolve the symptoms, and the symptoms can be localised to an intra-articular source, then additional treatment options may include a variety of cartilage restoration procedures that have been developed primarily for the knee and then subsequently used in the shoulder, including microfracture, and osteochondral grafting. The results of these treatments have been rarely reported with only case series and expert opinion to support their use.

When arthritis is moderate or severe in young adults, non-arthroplasty interventions have included arthroscopic capsular release, debridement, acromioplasty, distal clavicle resection, microfracture, osteophyte debridement, axillary nerve neurolysis, and bicep tenotomy or tenodesis, or some combination of these techniques. Again, the literature is very limited, with most case series less than 5 years of follow-up. The results are typically acceptable for pain relief, some functional improvement, but not restoration to completely normal function from the patient's perspective.

Attempts to resurface the arthritic joint have resulted in limited benefits over a short period of time in most studies. While a few remarkable procedures have provided reasonable outcomes, they are typically in the hands of the developer of the procedure and subsequently, other surgeons fail to achieve the same results. This has been the case with fascia lata grafting of the glenoid, dermal allografts, meniscal allografts, and even biologic resurfacing with large osteochondral grafts for osteoarthritis. Most surgical interventions that show high value in terms of improvement in quality of life require 10-year follow-up. It is unlikely that any of these arthroscopic procedures or resurfacing procedures will provide outcomes that would be valuable in terms of population healthcare; they are currently used on an individual basis to try to delay progression to arthroplasty, with surgeon bias based on personal experience, training, or expert opinion.

Arthroplasty in the young adult remains controversial. Without question, study after study supports total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty once the decision has been made that joint replacement is the only remaining option.

Biologic supplementation and augmentation techniques have become popular in recent years. There has been considerable media attention regarding professional athletes and celebrities who have traveled around the world to receive treatments using proprietary cocktails of platelet rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrates, extracellular matrix, adipose-derived stem cells, human as well as xenograft derived collagen implants and protein supplements among other components.

Unfortunately, the medical evidence regarding these treatments has often been inconsistent, inadequate with respect to levels of evidence with a dearth of mid- and long-term data to guide our treatments.

This presentation will review the data available regarding the treatment of rotator cuff tendinosis, partial thickness rotator cuff tears, full thickness rotator cuff tears and osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Unfortunately, there are more questions than answers regarding the use of biologics.

Neurovascular injury during shoulder arthroplasty is uncommon and has been reported to occur in 1–4% of cases. The incidence of nerve abnormalities during intraoperative nerve monitoring during shoulder arthroplasty is substantially higher. However, the rate of false positives with nerve monitoring is high and the clinical significance of these intraoperative findings is unknown. Therefore, the clinical utility of intraoperative nerve monitoring is unproven. Regardless, experience with intraoperative nerve monitoring has allowed us to identify the times during the procedure when measurable nerve dysfunction is most common. Moreover, experience as well as familiarity with reported patient and anatomic risk factors may help reduce the incidence of neurovascular injury.

Five rules that will likely help to reduce intraoperative nerve injuries include recognition of reported patient risk factors, knowledge of relevant anatomy and normal anatomic variations, intraoperative identification and protection of at-risk neurovascular structures, limitation of overall operative time and the amount of time with the arm in at-risk positions, and minimization of retraction force.

It is likely not possible to completely avoid neurovascular injuries during TSA. However, by following these five rules, the risk of neurovascular injury can be minimised.

In an effort to address the relatively high rate of glenoid component lucent lines, loosening and failure, tantalum/trabecular metal glenoid implant fixation has evolved as it has in hip and knee arthroplasty. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoid implants used in a consecutive patient case series have demonstrated a lower failure rate than traditional all polyethylene cemented glenoids. Although the radiographs of some patients demonstrated small focal areas of lucency, none have become loose, and only two have actually demonstrated glenoid component failure due to a fracture 6 years after the index procedure. One with glenoid loosening was due to polyethylene wear from a massive cuff tear occurring 8 years after the index procedure. Most patients experienced significant improvements in shoulder range of motion and reduction in pain. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoids when carefully implanted do not produce excessive failure rates, but rather result in functional improvements while decreasing operative time.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has a proven track record as an effective treatment for a variety of rotator cuff deficient conditions. However, glenoid erosion associated with the arthritic component of these conditions can present a challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. Options for treatment of glenoid wear include partial reaming with incomplete baseplate seating, bony augmentation using structural or impaction grafting techniques, and augmented baseplates. Augmented components have the advantage of accommodating glenoid deformity with a durable material and also ream less subchondral bone; both of which may offer an advantage over traditional bone grafting.

Biomechanical and early clinical studies of augmented glenoid baseplates suggest they are a reasonable treatment option, though posteriorly augmented baseplates have shown better performance than superiorly augmented implants. However, there are no mid- or late-term studies comparing augmented baseplates to bone grafting or partial reaming.

We present a live surgical demonstration of RTSA for a patient with advanced glenoid erosion being treated with an augmented glenoid baseplate that can be dialed in the direction of any deformity (superior, posterior, etc.). This versatility allows the surgeon to place the augment in any direction and is not confined to the traditional concepts of glenoid wear in a single vector. Clearly, longer term follow up studies are needed to determine the ultimate effectiveness of these devices in treating glenoid deformity in RTSA.

The number of shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States continues to rise. Currently, the number of procedures performed per year ranges from 55,000–80,000 and is expected to increase more than 300% in the coming years. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most serious complications associated with arthroplasty surgery, leading to poor outcomes, increased cost, and technically difficult revision surgery. The incidence of infection following primary shoulder arthroplasty has been reported between 0.7% and 4%, representing 2.9–4.6% of all complications.

Prosthetic shoulder joint infections are unlike prosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. Shoulder PJIs are primarily indolent in nature and difficult to diagnose using traditional methods that have been shown to be accurate for periprosthetic infections of the hip and knee. The majority of infected revision shoulder arthroplasties are associated with growth of Propionibacterium acnes (P. Acnes). This slow-growing, anaerobic organism requires longer than normal incubation times for culture (7–21 days), and typically demonstrates a subtle, non-specific clinical presentation that can make the presence of infection difficult to identify. In the reported literature, P. Acnes accounts for about 70% of cases with positive cultures associated with revision for treatment of a painful shoulder arthroplasty and due to the bacteria's slow growing nature and virulence profile, the rate of infection following shoulder arthroplasty may often be underestimated.

A more recent and promising tool for evaluation of periprosthetic infection has been analysis of synovial fluid. Synovial fluid biomarkers have been identified as part of the innate response to pathogens, and include pro-inflammatory cytokines and anti-microbial peptides, and marker levels have shown promise for improved diagnostic efficacy in hip and knee PJI. Currently, no highly predictive clinical test for diagnosis of PJI in the shoulder exists, however, several of these synovial biomarkers have recently been analyzed for their diagnostic capacity in the setting of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Synovial fluid cytokine analysis shows the potential to improve diagnosis of infection in revision shoulder arthroplasty. This information can help to guide decision-making in the management of PJI of the shoulder, including the decision to perform a single- vs. two-stage revision surgery, and the need for post-operative antibiotics following an unexpected positive culture result after revision surgery. However, there are still challenges to broader use of these synovial biomarkers. Synovial α-defensin (Synovsure, CD Diagnostic) is the only marker currently available as a commercial test, and no point-of-care test is currently available for any of the biomarkers to allow for intraoperative decision-making. While a preoperative synovial aspirate is possible to send for α-defensin analysis currently, with results back in approximately 24 hours, dry fluid aspirations are frequent in the shoulder because of the predominance of indolent pathogens and may limit utility of the test.

In summary, indolent infection associated with P. acnes is a common cause for the painful total shoulder arthroplasty. Pre-operative diagnosis of infection is difficult as a result of the poor diagnostic accuracy of traditional methods of testing. Synovial biomarker testing may ultimately improve our ability to more accurately diagnosis and treat prosthetic shoulder joint infections.

There remains to be substantial debate on the best treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Infection after shoulder arthroplasty is an uncommon but devastating complication with a reported incidence from 0 to 4%. The most common organism responsible for infection following rotator cuff surgery, instability surgery, ORIF proximal humerus fractures, and shoulder arthroplasty is Prop. Acnes. A thorough history is important because many patients have a history of difficulty with wound healing or drainage. Prop. Acnes typically does not start to grow until day 5, therefore it is critical to keep cultures a minimum of 10 to 14 days.

Diagnosis can be difficult, particularly among patients undergoing revision surgery. The majority of patients with a low grade infection do not have overt signs of infection such as erythema or sinus tracts. Preoperative lab values as well as intraoperative pathology have been shown to be unreliable in predicting who will have positive cultures at the time of revision surgery.

There are a number of options for treating a patient with a post-operative infection. Critical variables include the timing of infection, status of the host, the specific organism, status of implant fixation, and the status of the rotator cuff and deltoid. One of the most frequently employed options for treating the infected shoulder arthroplasty is two-stage re-implantation. However, the rate of complications with this technique as well as residual infection remains high.

Periprosthetic fractures occurring in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) represent challenges both in decision-making as well as surgical management.

These fractures more frequently involve the humerus but can also occur in the scapula. In a few cases with minimal displacement conservative care may be employed.

In most, however, surgical intervention is needed. Depending on the quality of the surrounding bone, the health of the patient, the stability of the existing implant, and the integrity of the surrounding soft tissues, options for management include open reduction and internal fixation, long stem implants, bone grafting, strut and cable fixation, or a combination of these techniques.

In some cases revision arthroplasty is indicated. An approach to surgical decision-making, operative techniques and avoidance of complications will be presented.

Total shoulder arthroplasty has gone through several generations, as instruments and implant designs have given surgeons both more options in the alignment of the components and more guidance in the best choices to make. However, while the measurement of alignment has become more sophisticated, the importance of particular aspects of alignment to actual patient comfort and function has been less completely characterised.

Overstuffing of the joint and proud humeral heads have been most associated with clinical failure. The efforts to avoid this can be divided into two camps: 1.) The anatomic school, who believe an experienced surgeon can divine the correct anatomy that existed before the distortions of arthritis began, and that the surgeon should make free-hand cuts and alignments to restore the normal anatomy. 2.) The cutting-guide school, who believe that average versions and positions avoid error and that soft-tissue balancing requires occasional deviations from “normal” anatomy.

Reverse total shoulder replacement in contrast is a semi-constrained implant, with built-in “internal impingement” at the extremes of motion, which can cause notching and/or instability (levering out). Initial European experience favored placing the humeral component in 0 degrees, but most surgeons have gravitated toward 15–20 degrees of retroversion to allow easy conversion from/to a hemiarthroplasty as needed. Increased retroversion may block internal rotation, and increased anteversion limits external rotation.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is becoming a frequent treatment of choice for patients with shoulder disorders. Complication rates after reverse shoulder arthroplasty may be three-fold that of conventional total shoulder arthroplasty especially in high risk patient populations and diagnoses like revision arthroplasty, fracture sequelae, and severe glenoid bone loss. Complications include component malposition, stiffness, neurological injury, infection, dislocation or instability, acromial or scapular spine fractures, scapular notching, and loosening of implants. Recognition of preoperative risk factors and appropriate 3D planning are essential in optimizing patient outcome and intraoperative success. Failure of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a significant challenge requiring appropriate diagnosis of the failure mode.

The most common neurological injuries involve the brachial plexus and the axillary nerve due to traction, manipulation of the arm, aberrant retractor placement, or relative lengthening of the arm. Intraoperative fractures are relatively uncommon but include the greater tuberosity, acromion, and glenoid. Tuberosity fracture can be repaired intraoperatively with suture techniques, glenoid fractures may be insignificant rim fractures or jeopardise baseplate fixation and require abandoning RSA until glenoid fracture ORIF heals and then a second stage RSA. Periprosthetic infection after RSA ranges from 1 to 10% and may be higher in revision cases and frequently is Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Dislocation was one of the most common complications after RSA approximately 5% but with increased surgeon experience and prosthetic design, dislocation rates are approaching 1–2%. An anterosuperior deltoid splitting approach has been associated with increased stability as well as subscapularis repair after RSA. Scapular notching is the most common complication after RSA. Notching may be caused by direct mechanical impingement of the humerosocket polyethylene on the scapular neck and from osteolysis from polyethylene wear. Sirveaux classified scapular notching based on the defect size as it erodes behind the baseplate towards the central post. Acromial fractures are infrequent but more common is severely eroded acromions from CTA, with osteoporosis, with excessive lengthening, and with superior baseplate screws that penetrate the scapular spine and create a stress riser. Nonoperative care is the mainstay of acromial and scapular spine fractures.

Recognizing preoperative risk factors and understanding component positioning and design is essential to maximizing successful outcomes.

Challenging cases in shoulder surgery emphasizing joint reconstruction will be presented to a distinguished panel of experts. Audience participation will be encouraged.

Preoperative assessment, imaging, operative techniques, and postoperative care will be emphasised. Special focus will be on shoulder replacement, especially reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Glenoid exposure is the name of the game in total shoulder arthroplasty. I can honestly say that it took me more than 5 years but less than 10 to feel confident exposing any glenoid, regardless of the degree of bone deformity and the severity of soft-tissue contracture. This lecture represents the synthesis of my experience exposing some of the most difficult glenoids. The basic principles are performing extensive soft-tissue release, minimizing the anteroposterior dimension of the humerus by osteophyte excision, making an accurate humeral neck cut, having a plethora of glenoid retractors, and knowing where to place them.

The ten tips, in reverse order of importance are: 10.) Tilt the table away from operative side—this helps face the surface of the glenoid, especially in cases of posterior wear, toward the surgeon. 9.) Have multiple glenoid retractors—these include a large Darrach, a reverse double-pronged Bankart, one or two blunt Homans, small and large Fukudas. 8.) Remove all humeral osteophytes before attempting to retract the humerus posteriorly to expose the glenoid—this helps to decrease the overall anteroposterior dimension of the humerus and allows for maximum posterior displacement of the humerus. 7.) Make an accurate humeral neck cut—even 5mm of extra humeral bone will make glenoid exposure difficult. 6.) Optimal humeral position—it has been taught that abduction, external rotation, and extension is the optimal position. It may vary with each case. Therefore, experiment with humeral rotation to find the position that allows maximum visualization. This is often the position that makes the cut surface of the humerus parallel to the surface of the glenoid. 5.) Optimal retractor placement—my typical retractor placement is a Fukuda on the posterior lip of the glenoid, a reverse double-pronged Bankart on the anterior neck of the scapula, and a blunt Homan posterosuperiorly. Occasionally, a second blunt Homan anteroinferiorly is helpful, particularly in muscular males with a large pectoralis major. 4.) Laminar spreader for lateral humeral displacement—this can be helpful for posterior capsulorrhaphy or for posterior glenoid bone grafting. 3.) Maximal humeral capsular release—the release of the anterior capsule from the humerus must go well past the 6 o'clock position and up the posterior surface of the humerus. This aides in humeral exposure but also allows for more posterior displacement of the humerus during glenoid exposure. 2.) Anteroinferior capsular release or excision—extensive anteroinferior release or excision (my preference), allows for maximal posterior humeral displacement and also restores external rotation. 1.) Posterior or posteroinferior capsular release—release of the posteroinferior corner of the capsule from the glenoid results in a noticeable increase in posterior humeral retractability. In cases without substantial posterior subluxation, extensive release of the entire posterior capsule is performed.

Latissimus dorsi anterior to major transfers have been advocated in the setting of loss of external rotation and elevation in conjunction with reverse shoulder replacement. Reverse shoulder replacement is a prosthesis specifically designed for shoulders with poor rotator cuff function. In the vast majority of cases, some teres minor function at the minimum is maintained in shoulders destined for a reverse shoulder replacement. However, in certain circumstances there is complete loss of any external rotation, and a muscle transfer can be performed in order to restore some external rotation function. A reverse shoulder replacement in the absence of any rotator cuff function goes into obligate internal rotation with elevation. A minimum of external rotation strength is necessary in order to maintain the arm in normal rotation. The first tip is patient selection. Physical examination of active external rotation, external rotation strength and forward elevation should be just performed. A latissimus transfer is indicated in patients who cannot maintain their arm in neutral to at least a few degrees of external rotation. A lag sign is another physical examination finding which can indicate complete loss of rotator cuff function. The latissimus dorsi transfer is performed by first identifying and releasing the latissimus from its insertion on the anterior humerus. The arthroplasty is performed. The passage for the latissimus muscle is developed carefully and being mindful of the axillary nerve in particular. The latissimus is directed inferior to the nerve and around the medial and posterior aspect of the proximal humerus. Different ways of securing the transfer to the humerus have been described including bone tunnels and anchors. Often it is easier to place the anchors and/or the bone tunnels prior to inserting the humeral prosthesis. The latissimus is secured in the new position, enabling it to participate in external rotation. The value of this is difficult to clearly establish. Most studies are evidence level IV and there are no good comparative studies in a controlled patient population. This is a good option for shoulders with no active external rotation, but they may increase overall complication rate. Complications include dislocation, infection, and transient nerve palsy.

Shoulder arthroplasty procedures continue to increase in prevalence and controversy still remains about the optimal method to manage the subscapularis. Scalise et al. performed an analysis of 20 osteotomies and 15 tenotomy procedures, and found the tenotomy group had a higher rate of abnormal subscapularis tendons on ultrasound examination. There was one tendon rupture in the subscapularis tenotomy group and no ruptures in the osteotomy group. Jandhyala et al. retrospectively examined 26 lesser tuberosity osteotomies and 10 subscapularis tenotomies for arthroplasty, and their study demonstrated a significant improvement in the belly press test for the osteotomy group. Lapner et al. performed a randomised controlled trial assigning patients to either a lesser tuberosity osteotomy or a subscapularis peel procedure. They evaluated 36 osteotomies and 37 subscapularis peels. The outcomes evaluated were Dynamometer internal rotation strength, the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and in a subsequent paper they evaluated the healing rates and Goutallier grade. Their studies illustrated no difference in the internal rotation strength between groups. Both groups significantly improved WOOS and ASES scores postoperatively, but the difference was not significant between groups. Goutallier grade increased significantly in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups. Overall, the different approaches have not demonstrated a meaningful clinical difference. Further studies are needed to help understand issues leading to subscapularis complications after arthroplasty.

Patient perceptions regarding the functional outcomes and return to sports after shoulder replacement are often pessimistic, with many patients presenting for shoulder replacement surgery after months or years of avoiding the procedure so they could continue to live the current life they have, despite the increasing pain and dysfunction. Less common, but becoming more frequent, patients present with expectations that they will be able to return to all activities including heavy resistance training, cross-fit, rock climbing, and other strenuous overhead sports. In the past, little information has been available regarding the activities of shoulder arthroplasty patients after surgery. Typically, the boundaries have been set by the surgeon, with many patients cautioned or even prohibited from overhead sports, weight training, or heavy work responsibilities. A typical set of guidelines may include no repetitive overhead sports, except for recreational swimming, and no lifting over 20 pounds. Golf, jogging, hiking and other activities are allowed.

The origin of these restricted guidelines and expectations is unknown, but many believe that since the results of shoulder replacements are less favorable in younger patients, it may be due to the overuse or abuse of the shoulder joint that is more typical at a younger age. Others have suggested that common sense prevails and that an artificial joint made of metal and plastic has a finite number of total movements and tolerance to resistance activities, and therefore keeping these activities at a minimum would extend the longevity of the artificial joint. None of these concepts are backed up by evidence-based literature, essentially reflecting the personal bias of the surgeons who care for patients with these problems. Despite all of the sophisticated research, scoring scales, outcome measures, and value-based metrics, the only outcome that really matters is whether the patient can return back to their normal way of life, at home, at work, during sport, or any activity that is important to them.

Recent studies of patients who have had joint replacement surgery have revealed that our patients who participated in sports and work activities before surgery have a strong predilection to returning to those activities after successful shoulder replacement. The most common sports that shoulder arthroplasty patients enjoy including golf, swimming, tennis, but may also include many other choices including fitness activities, rowing, skiing, basketball, and softball. As expected, the return to these sports is less for reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients vs. anatomic shoulder arthroplasty patients. In a systematic review, more than 90% of anatomic shoulder replacement patients returned to sport, while 75% of reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients returned to some sporting activity. This may reflect the constraints of the reverse prosthesis, or, quite possibly reflect the typically older age and more sedentary lifestyle of patients who are indicated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In addition, if the patient had a preoperative expectation of return to recreational and sports activities as part of their normal way of life, their final results demonstrated better overall outcomes.

Shoulder arthroplasty surgeons should be concerned about the outcomes desired by our patients, and the results that provide true value to their lives. We are now more aware of the activities that they are going to return to, whether we recommend restrictions or not.

Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During reverse replacement the biomechanical forces are different on the humeral stem. Stem loosening during reverse replacement may have different factors than anatomic replacement. A systemic review of 41 reverse arthroplasty clinical studies compared the functional outcomes and complications of cemented and uncemented stems in approximately 1800 patients. There was no difference in the risk of stem loosening or revision between cemented and uncemented stems. Uncemented stems have at least equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with cemented stems during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is associated with fully cemented stems or well ingrown components that exclude potential synovial debris that may cause osteolysis.

Due to the success, quantified by both clinical improvement and durability, the number of TKA procedures performed annually has steadily increased since its introduction and it is predicted that approximately 3 million knee arthroplasties will be performed in 2030. Part of this exponential growth is due to indication expansion and TKA is now often performed for younger, more active and heavier patients that historically would have been denied the procedure. Combined with an aging population, often afflicted with comorbidities, it is not surprising that the number of TKA revisions performed annually is also increasing. TKA failure, with subsequent revision surgery, is a costly problem often associated with substantial morbidity. In order to reduce the incidence of TKA failure, it is critical that we expand our knowledge of the issue by asking the question, why are TKAs failing today? Due to a demographically evolving arthroplasty population, the introduction of the new surgical techniques and the routine addition to the market of next generation implants, it is likely that the mechanisms for TKA failure will change over time. It is also possible that there may be regional and even institutional variance when the reasons for TKA failure are investigated. Therefore, it is critical that this question concerning failure mechanisms be repeatedly studied and examined by various study designs in multiple clinical settings.

This lecture will focus on several key aspects of TKA failure: Early (less than 2 to 5 years) vs. late failure; Historically, why did TKAs fail and what has been done to decrease certain failure modes; Why are TKAs failing today?

Only with a comprehensive understanding of TKA failure mechanisms will we be able to properly address this problem and focus our efforts and resources on meaningful solutions. Even incremental improvements that only modestly decrease TKA failure incidence should provide our healthcare system with enormous savings and more importantly, greatly decrease patient morbidity.

Until recently, research has failed to show a difference between posterior-stabilised (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) designs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This classic debate has been given pause over the past decade due to futile efforts to prove one design superior over the other. Recently, anterior-lipped and more conforming CR bearings have emerged to substitute for the PCL, if absent, damaged or resected, and obviate the need for the archaic cam-post mechanism of a traditional PS design. Advantages of avoiding a PS TKA include decreasing the risk of femoral condylar fracture that may occur via the box cut, as well as decreasing operative time by removing that step in the procedure. Avoiding a post-cam mechanism also removes the articulation that is a source of wear, post deformation, breakage, or dislocation. Patella clunk is also associated solely with PS designs.

Modern anterior lipped inserts in PCL-deficient TKAs have demonstrated similar functional outcomes compared to PS knees. A prospective randomised controlled trial of 28 patients undergoing bilateral TKAs had a PS bearing in one knee and a contralateral CS insert with the PCL excised and reported no functional outcome difference at 5-year follow up. Scott and co-authors compared 56 PS TKAs to 55 TKAs with anterior-lipped inserts in a randomised, prospective study and found no functional outcome differences at minimum two-year follow up, with tourniquet times significantly longer in the PS group. In a recent report, 43 anterior-lipped compared to 39 matched PS TKAs had equivalent function scores at minimum 1-year follow-up. Ultra-congruent bearings provide inherent stability in TKA and two studies have reported identical functional outcomes compared to PS TKAs. Finally, there is now recent registry data that demonstrates a significant decrease in long-term survivorship in PS TKAs with a 45% higher risk of revision compared to minimally stabilised bearings in TKA.

Equivalent functional outcomes in multiple studies comparing CR-type bearings and PS TKAs, combined with the potential deleterious outcomes associated with PS designs and increased risk of revision and decreased long-term survivorship, preclude the need for PS TKA designs in the modern healthcare environment. Hence, PS TKA designs are truly “vestigial organs”, and should be relegated to historical interest.

First generation condylar knee replacements suffered from 2 prominent observations: Difficulty in stair climbing and Limited range of motion.

Improved understanding of knee kinematics, the importance of femoral rollback, and enhanced stability in flexion led to 2 differing schools of thought: posterior cruciate ligament retention or posterior cruciate substitution. The advantages of posterior cruciate substitution include predictable CAM-post engagement leading to rollback, predictable ROM, stability during stair climbing, ease of knee balancing regardless of degree of angular deformity, and avoidance of issues such as PCL tightness / laxity at time of index procedure, as well as late ligament disruption leading to late instability.

Evolution has shown that human appendages that no longer served a purpose, slowly shrivel up. As we have seen with the appendix, the coccyx, and the erector pili muscles, these vestigial organs no longer are necessary for daily function and are destined for obsolescence. I submit: the PCL in knee arthroplasty IS THE VESTIGIAL ORGAN: not the posterior stabilizing mechanism!

Total knee replacements are being more commonly performed in active younger and obese patients. Fifteen-year survivorship studies demonstrate that cemented total knee replacements have excellent survivorship, with reports of 85 to 97%. Cemented knee arthroplasties are doomed to failure due to loss of cement-bone interlock over time. Inferior survivorship occurs in younger patients and obese patients who would be expected to place increased stress on the bone-cement interfaces. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) studies have indicated that cementless fixation should perform better than cemented fixation. However, cementless fixation for total knee replacement has not gained widespread utilization due to the plethora of poor results reported in early series. The poor initial results with cementless total knee replacement have occurred due to poor implant designs such as cobalt chrome porous interfaces, poor initial tibial component stability, lack of continuous porous coating, poor polyethylene, and use of metal-backed patellae.

I have used cementless fixation for total knee replacements for young, active, and heavy patients since 1986 when durability over 20 years is desirable. My series of over 1,300 cementless TKAs represents about 20% of the 6,500 total knees I have performed from 1986 to 2017. I have seen initial failures in my series due to the use of metal-backed patellae with thin polyethylene, older generation polyethylene, and use of screws with the tibial components which provide access to the metaphyseal bone for polyethylene wear debris. Overall implant fixation failures were still significantly low due to the use of a highly porous titanium surface on both the tibial and femoral components. With the advent of utilizing implants with continuous porous surfaces and highly crosslinked polyethylene, and elimination of use of metal-backed patellae and tibial screws, I have only had one revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis in the last 1,071 cases performed since 2002.

Almost 50% of total knees are now performed on patients under the age of 65. A 55-year-old patient has a 30 year life expectancy. Modern total knee replacement design has made biological fixation predictable for young and heavy patients. Because it is a biological interface, it should respond better than cement to the increased stresses that will be applied over many years by our younger, more active and heavier total knee population.

There is no question that at some point many TKAs will be cementless-the question is when. The advantages of cementless TKA include a shorter operative time, no need for a tourniquet, more suitability for MIS, no concern for cement extrusion, and the history of THA. The concerns for cementless TKA include the history to date with cementless TKA (tibia and metal-backed patella), variable bony substrate, surgical cut precision, cost, revision concerns, and the patella (for patella component resurfacers).

Cemented total knee arthroplasty remains the gold standard and has proven to provide durable results in most patients. The early experience with cementless tibial fixation was problematic due to tibial micromotion leading to pain and loosening. Screw fixed tibial components had additional problems as portals for polyethylene debris leading to tibial osteolysis. Moreover, metal-backed patellar components were associated with a high failure rate and most surgeons began to cement all three components.

Renewed interest in cementless tibial fixation is driven in part by newer materials felt to be more suitable for ingrowth and by the perceived benefit of minimally invasive surgery. One of the concerns in limited exposure total knee arthroplasty is the difficulty in preventing the extravasation of cement posteriorly. If there is evidence-based data that quad sparing non-patella everting and limited incision length facilitates rehabilitation and does not jeopardise outcome, cementless tibial fixation will be a more attractive option in some patients. An additional concern is that the tibial surface is frequently quite variable in terms of the strength of the cancellous bone. Bone cement stabilises those differences and provides a homogeneous platform for load bearing through the tibial component.

Bone loss in total knee replacement has different configurations and most condylar and plateau deficits are well managed with prosthetic augmentation. Cones are rarely, if ever, necessary for these deficits and when entire femoral condyles are absent distal segmental replacement has worked well. In the setting of severe intramedullary bone loss on the tibial or femoral side cones may be used to support deficit bone. This is the one indication for the use of cones.

The negative side of cones is that additional bone may be removed to fit a cone adequately. Many of the lesser areas of bone deficiency can be managed by the use of larger diameter stems for fixation. In a paper from Sandford et al. from the Vancouver group allograft results at 5 −10 year follow up had a similar success rate to cones. Rohl in a paper looking at cones and hybrid stems for bone loss in revision TKR found no difference in results at 3.5 years.

Cones cost $4,000–6,000 each and their utilization has been increasing greatly. At Hospital for Special Surgery in 2015 18 cones were used, this has increased to over 150 in 2017 at a cost of $800,000. The overutilization of cones adds considerably to the cost of a revision procedure. Cones have a place in revision TKR for bone loss but it is limited and they should be used in the most extreme cases where bone augmentation is required for structural stability.

The management of bone loss in revision total knee replacement (TKA) remains a challenge. To accomplish the goals of revision TKA, the surgeon needs to choose the appropriate implant design to “fix the problem,” achieve proper component placement and alignment, and obtain robust short- and long-term fixation. Proper identification and classification of the extent of bone loss and deformity will aid in preoperative planning. Extensive bone loss may be due to progressive osteolysis (a mechanism of failure), or as a result of intraoperative component removal. The Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) is a useful classification system that individually describes femoral and tibial defects by the appearance, severity, and location of bone defects. This system provides a guideline to treatment and enables preoperative planning on radiographs.

In Type 1 defects, femoral and tibial defects are characterised by minor contained deficiencies at the bone-implant interface. Metaphyseal bone is intact and the integrity of the joint line is not compromised. In this scenario, the best reconstruction option is to increase the thickness of bone resection and to fill the defect with cancellous bone graft or cement. Type 2 defects are characterised by deficient metaphyseal bone involving one or more femoral condyle(s) or tibial plateau(s). The peripheral rim of cortical bone may be intact or partially compromised, and the joint line is abnormal. Reconstruction options for a Type 2A defect include impaction bone grafting, cement, or more commonly, prosthetic augmentation (e.g. sleeves, augments or wedges). In Type 2B defects, metaphyseal bone of both femoral condyles or both tibial plateaus is deficient. The peripheral rim of cortical bone may be intact or partially compromised, and the joint line is abnormal. Options for a Type 2B defect include impaction grafting, bulk structural allograft, prosthetic augmentation, metaphyseal sleeves (in some cases), or metaphyseal cones. Finally, in the presence of a Type 3 deficiency, both metaphyseal and cortical bone is deficient and there is partial or complete disruption of the collateral ligament attachments. In this case, the most commonly used reconstruction options include hinged implants or megaprostheses with or without bulk structural allograft, prosthetic augmentation, and/or metaphyseal/diaphyseal sleeves or cones.

Today, we are fortunate to have a wide variety of options available to aid in reconstruction of a revision TKA with massive bone loss. Historically, use of cement, bone grafting, or use of a tumor-type or hinged implant were considered the main options for reconstruction. The development and adoption of highly porous sleeves and cones has given the surgeon a new and potentially more durable option for reconstruction of previously difficult to treat defects. Using radiographs and computed tomography, surgeons are able to preoperatively classify bone loss and anticipate a reconstruction plan based upon the classification; however, it is always important to have several back-up options on hand during revision surgery in the event bone loss is worse than expected.

An osteochondral defect greater than 3cm in diameter and 1cm in depth is best managed by an osteochondral allograft.

If there is an associated knee deformity, then an osteotomy is performed. In our series of osteochondral allografts for large post-traumatic knee defects realignment osteotomy is performed about 60% of the time in order to off-load the transplant. To correct varus we realign the proximal tibia with an opening wedge osteotomy. To correct valgus, we realign the distal femur with a closing wedge osteotomy.

Our results with osteochondral allografts for the large osteochondral defects of the knee both femur and tibia, have been excellent in 85% of patients at an average follow-up of 10 years. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 15 years is 72%. At an average follow-up of 22 years in 58 patients with distal femoral osteochondral allograft, 13 have been revised (22%). The 15-year survivorship was 84%.

Retrieval studies of 24 fresh osteochondral grafts obtained at graft revision or conversion total knee replacement at an average of 12 years (5 – 25) revealed the following. In the areas where the graft was still intact, the cartilage was of normal thickness and architecture. Matrix staining was normal except in the superficial and upper mid zones. Chondrocytes were mostly viable but there was chondrocyte clusters and loss of chondrocyte polarity. Host bone had extended to the calcified cartilage but variable remnants of dead bone surrounded by live bone persisted. With a stable osseous base the hyaline cartilage portion of the graft can survive for up to 25 years.

Knee replacement is a proven and reproducible procedure to alleviate pain, re-establish alignment and restore function. However, the quality and completeness to which these goals are achieved is variable.

The idea of restoring function by reproducing condylar anatomy and asymmetry has been gaining favor. As knee replacements have evolved, surgeons have created a set of principles for reconstruction, such as using the femoral transepicondylar axis (TEA) in order to place the joint line of the symmetric femoral component parallel to the TEA, and this has been shown to improve kinematics. However, this bony landmark is really a single plane surrogate for independent 3-dimensional medial and lateral femoral condylar geometry, and a difference has been shown to exist between the natural flexion-extension arc and the TEA. The TEA works well as a surrogate, but the idea of potentially replicating normal motion by reproducing the actual condylar geometry and its involved, individual asymmetry has great appeal.

Great variability in knee anatomy can be found among various populations, sizes, and genders. Each implant company creates their specific condylar geometry, or “so called” J curves, based on a set of averages measured in a given population. These condylar geometries have traditionally been symmetric, with the individualised spatial placement of the (symmetric) curves achieved through femoral component sizing, angulation, and rotation performed at the time of surgery. There is an inherent compromise in trying to achieve accurate, individual medial and lateral condylar geometry reproduction, while also replicating size and avoiding component overhang with a set implant geometry and limited implant sizes. Even with patient-specific instrumentation using standard over-the-counter implants, the surgeon must input his/her desired endpoints for bone resection, femoral rotation, and sizing as guidelines for compromise. When all is done, and soft tissue imbalance exists, soft tissue release is the final, common compromise.

The custom, individually made knee design goals include reproducible mechanical alignment, patient-specific fit and positioning, restoration of articular condylar geometry, and thereby, more normal kinematics. A CT scan allows capture of three-dimensional anatomical bony details of the knee. The individual J curves are first noted and corrected for deformity, after which they are anatomically reproduced using a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file of the bones in order to maximally cover the bony surfaces and concomitantly avoid implant overhang. No options for modifications are offered to the surgeon, as the goal is anatomic restoration.

Given these ideals, to what extent are patients improved? The concept of reproducing bony anatomy is based on the pretext that form will dictate function, such that normal-leaning anatomy will tend towards normal-leaning kinematics. Therefore, we seek to evaluate knee function based on objective assessments of movement or kinematics.

In summary, the use of custom knee technology to more closely reproduce an individual patient's anatomy holds great promise in improving the quality and reproducibility of postoperative function. Compromises of fit and rotation are minimised, and implant overhang is potentially eliminated as a source of pain. Early results have shown objective improvements in clinical outcomes. Admittedly, this technology is limited to those patients with mild to moderate deformity at this time, since options like constraint and stems are not available. Yet these are the patients who can most clearly benefit from a higher functional state after reconstruction. Time will reveal if this potential can become a reproducible reality.

Management of a knee with valgus deformities has always been considered a major challenge. Total knee arthroplasty requires not only correction of this deformity but also meticulous soft tissue balancing and achievement of a balanced rectangular gap. Bony deformities such as hypoplastic lateral condyle, tibial bone loss, and malaligned/malpositioned patella also need to be addressed. In addition, external rotation of the tibia and adaptive metaphyseal remodeling offers a challenge in obtaining the correct rotational alignment of the components. Various techniques for soft tissue balancing have been described in the literature and use of different implant options reported. These options include use of cruciate retaining, sacrificing, substituting and constrained implants.

Great strides have been made in perioperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leading to reduced length of hospital stay, cost reduction, improved patient satisfaction, and more rapid recovery without affecting the rates of readmission after surgery. To assure a happy patient, early recognition of patients at risk for persistent postoperative pain prior to surgery is key. Patients on chronic pain medication should be evaluated by pain management specialists with the intention of reducing overall narcotic requirement prior to TKA. Patients with high anxiety levels, pain catastrophizing, and Kinesphobia are at increased risk for increased pain and poor outcomes and should be referred for cognitive behavioral therapy and coping strategies. Finally, patients with hypersensitivity syndromes localised in the soft tissue around the knee should undergo desensitization protocols prior to TKA. Patient education on the risk of increased postoperative pain is crucial to manage expectations and optimise modifiable risk factors prior to TKA. To assure a happy patient indicated for TKA, a comprehensive pain management strategy divided into pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods should be employed.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty is known to have a significant blood loss averaging 3–4 g/dL. Historically, transfusion rates have been as high as 70%. Despite years of work to optimise blood management, some published data suggests that transfusion rates (especially with allogeneic blood) are rising. There is wide variability between surgeons as well, suggesting that varying protocols can influence transfusion rates. Multiple studies now associate blood transfusions with negative outcomes including increased surgical site infection, costs, and length of stay.

Preoperative measures can be employed. Identify patients that are at increased risk of blood transfusion. Smaller stature female patients, have pre-operative anemia (Hgb less than 13.0 gm/dl), or are undergoing revision or bilateral surgery are at high risk. We identify these patients and check a hemoglobin preoperatively, using a non-invasive finger monitor for screening. For anemic patients, iron administration (oral or IV) can be given, along with Procrit/Epogen in select cases. Insurance coverage for that medication has been challenging.

Intraoperative measures that have been linked to reduced postoperative transfusions include regional anesthesia and intraoperative hypotension (mean arterial pressure <60mm/hg). Lowering the surgical time by practicing efficient, organised, and quality surgery, along with leaving a dry field at the completion of surgery can reduce blood loss.

Tranexemic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been shown to be effective, reducing average blood loss by 300 cc per case. There are multiple different administration protocols: IV using either a weight-based dosing 10–20 mg/kg or standardised dosing for all patients. Our current regimen is 1 gm IV preoperatively, 1 gm IV in PACU. Topical TXA can be used, usually 2–3 gm mixed in 50–100 cc of saline, sprayed in wound and allow to soak for 3–5 minutes. Oral administration is attractive for ease of use and reduced cost, standard oral dosing is 1950 mg PO 2 hours prior to surgery.

The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, in collaboration with the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Society of Regional Anesthesiologists, and the Hip & Knee Society have developed a Clinical Practice Guideline with 8 recommendations for TXA as follows: All individual formulations are effective at reducing blood loss – strong; No method of administration is clearly superior at reducing blood loss and the risk of transfusion; The dose of IV or topical TXA does not significantly affect the drug's ability to reduce blood loss and risk of transfusion; Multiple doses of IV or oral TXA compared to a single dose does not significantly alter the risk of blood transfusion; Pre-incision IV TXA administration potentially reduces blood loss and risk of transfusion compared to post-incision administration; Administration of all TXA formulations in patients without history of VTE does not increase the risk of VTE; Administration of all TXA formulations in patients with a history of VTE, MI, CVA, TIA, or vascular stent does not appear to increase the risk of VTE; Administration of all TXA formulations does not appear to increase the risk of arterial thrombotic events; Postoperative measures to reduce transfusion rates include changing transfusion triggers. Instead of treating a “number”, use lower thresholds and employ safe algorithms established.

In conclusion, a comprehensive blood management program can reduce transfusion rates to less than 3% for THA and 1% for TKA and facilitate outpatient total joint arthroplasty.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected knee arthroplasty experts.

The primary cases will include challenges such as patient selection and setting expectations, exposure, alignment correction and balancing difficulties. In the revision knee arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, fixation challenges, instability and infection management will be discussed.

This will be an interactive case-based session that at its conclusion should leave the attendee with a more thorough approach to these challenging issues.

Bone marrow lesions (BMLs), identified by MRI, are defined as a region of cancellous bone with high T2 and low T1 signal intensity. They are associated with various knee pathologies including spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SPONK), AVN, trauma (fracture and bone contusion), following arthroscopy and secondary to overuse (i.e., after completing a marathon). They also are commonly recognised in patients with knee OA (referred to as OA-BMLs) and their substantial importance in knee OA pathogenesis has been recently identified. Depending upon the etiology (i.e., bone contusion, overuse, etc.) of the BML, these lesions can be “acute” in nature and spontaneously resolve over time. However, OA-BMLs generally are considered to be a “chronic” condition and overtime they have been shown to often persist and increase in size. Retrieval studies following THA and TKA, in patients with a preoperatively identified BML, have greatly expanded our understanding of OA – BMLs and these investigations consistently identify the critical role subchondral bone plays in OA disease progression. Histologic, histochemical and mechanical studies of OA-BMLs demonstrate significant alternations from healthy subchondral bone. The effected bone contains regions where fibrous tissue has replaced cancellous bone, microfractures are present and vascularity is increased. There is an increased concentration of inflammatory mediators and the bone structural integrity is compromised.

Standard radiographs of the knee correlate only modestly with patient symptoms, but conversely, the presence of an OA-BML is an extremely strong predictor of pain and knee joint dysfunction. Felson et al. reported this relationship. In a large group of patients with painful knee OA, 77.5% of these patients had a BML. Both the presence and size of the BML, following multiregression analysis, were significant predictors of knee pain severity.

Additionally, likely secondary to inadequate subchondral bone plate support, the presence of an OA-BML is associated with subchondral bone attrition (SBA). SBA leads to collapse of the subchondral bone plate and progressive joint deformity.

Based on the association of an OA-BML with pain, joint dysfunction and deformity, it is not surprising that these lesions are prognostic for patients seeking knee arthroplasty. Several studies have demonstrated that the odds of knee arthroplasty performance are substantially higher in patents with an OA-BML.

This enhanced understanding of knee OA pathogenesis and the critical role of subchondral bone in this process creates an opportunity for development of novel prevention and treatment strategies. Prevention of OA-BML formation has been considered and pharmacologic interventions proposed. Recent studies have reported positive results for treatment with bisphosphonates in patients with knee OA. One study reported significant pain and OA-BML size reduction in patients receiving a bisphosphonate for 4 months.

A strategy aimed at repairing and/or enhancing subchondral bone compromised by an OA-BML has also been proposed. Early results reported with this intervention are encouraging, but preliminary.

Fifteen-year survivorships studies demonstrate that total knee replacements have excellent survivorship, with reports of 85 to 97%. However, excellent survivorship does not equate to excellent patient reported outcomes. Total knee imbalance with either too tight or loose soft tissues account for up to 54% of revisions in one series. This may account for many of the 20% unsatisfactory total knee arthroplasty outcomes.

Soft tissue balancing technique is more like an art. The surgeon relies on subjective feel for appropriate ligamentous tension. Surgical experience and case volume play a major role in each surgeon's relative skill in balancing the knee properly.

New technology of “smart trials” with embedded microelectronics and accelerometers, used in the knee with the medial retinaculum closed, can provide dynamic, intraoperative feedback regarding knee quantitative compartment pressures and component tracking. After all bone cuts are made using the surgeon's preferred techniques, trial components with the sensor tibial trial are inserted and the knee is taken through a passive range of motion. After visualizing the resultant compartment pressures and tracking data on a graphical interface, imbalance situations such as a too tight MCL or ITB, an incompetent or too tight PCL, or malrotated femoral or tibial component can be identified. A decision can be made as to whether to recut the bone to realign components, do a soft tissue release, or a combination of both. Soft tissue releases can be titrated while observing equalizing compartment pressures.

Sensor feedback improves soft tissue balancing. More balanced compartments occur using a sensor trial than with standard soft tissue balancing technique blinded to sensor information. A multicenter three year study has shown that having the medial and lateral compartments in flexion and extension balanced within 15 pounds provides better outcomes. Patients with quantitatively balanced TKA with <15lbf mediolateral load differential have better forgotten knee scores at six weeks and six months. Use of smart trials is a new approach to total knee replacement surgery allowing fine tune balancing and takes soft tissue balancing from art to science.

Ligament releases are necessary for contemporary non-conforming femoral-tibial articulations.

Most total knee arthroplasty prostheses are designed to be non-conforming at the articulation between the femoral and tibial components. This design is chosen on the arthroplasty principle that “constraint causes loosening” and conforming surfaces have been considered constrained. To provide stability the ligaments are adjusted so that tension in the ligament can provide stability for the total knee replacement.

Ligament releases are NOT necessary for contemporary conforming femoral-tibial articulations.

Through the majority of the range of motion, the normal human knee is not stabilised by ligament tension. Rather, it is the geometrical conformity of the femur and tibia, especially on the medial side, that provides stability. The ligaments are present and ready to restrain the knee from excess varus-valgus or anterior-posterior loads. In a knee design that is congruent, ligaments may be left intact as in the normal knee, ready to provide restraint but not necessarily to provide stability except when excess loads are applied to the knee.

When designing and using the ADVANCE Medial Pivot total knee, the author has left ligaments in the toe-region of the stress-strain curve rather than releasing and tensioning the ligaments. Patient satisfaction survey data at routine follow-up visits for patients at 7–15 years after arthroplasty with this type of reconstruction indicate high satisfaction despite medial and lateral opening (on valgus and varus stress) that would be considered “mid-flexion instability” for non-conforming joints that require careful ligament releases and tensioning.

The development of more wear resistant biomaterials and better locking mechanisms for the polyethylene into the tibial base has significantly reduced polyethylene wear as a reason for revision TKA. Aseptic loosening is now the primary cause for revision TKA. Loosening can be caused by multifactorial operative issues: 1] patient selection, 2] implant alignment, 3] cementing technique. Furthermore, aseptic loosening occurs at a consistent rate over time. Increased cement penetration is important to counter bone resorption. Increasing penetration also improves cement mantle toughness leading to better mechanical integrity of the bone-cement interface and reduces bone-cement interface stress.

It is important to recognise that a cleaner and drier interface does improve bone-cement penetration. Techniques to improve the process include better cement formulations, drilling sclerotic bone, devices and implant features to increase pressurization, using negative pressure suction ports in the tibia. We have extensive experience with CarboJet, a method of CO₂ gas jet cleaning and drying. This experience was developed during 20 years of performing TKA with NO tourniquet. Schnetler et al found that the “use of a tourniquet in TKA causes a paradoxical increase in total blood loss”. So, NO tourniquet TKA is becoming the new paradigm for knee arthroplasty in reconstructive orthopaedics. Goldstein reported that pressurised carbon dioxide jet lavage resulted in a 35% increase in cement penetration depth when used vs. use of pulsatile saline lavage alone. Meneghini used this pressurised carbon dioxide system to study the influence of NO tourniquet use in TKA. He found a significant lowering of opioid consumption postoperatively.

Another important factor in increasing the cement interdigitation is the influence of lipids which significantly weakens the bond at the interfaces. If motion is allowed during cementation there is additional loss of penetration and therefore fixation. The pressurised carbon dioxide delivered by the CarboJet system actually pushes the lipid, fatty marrow up and out of the bone allowing it to be suctioned or lap dried from the interface surface. The NO tourniquet technique and the use of carbon dioxide jet gas delivery to improve the bone-cement interface in TKA will be demonstrated.

Surgeon-performed periarticular injection and anesthesiologist-performed femoral nerve or adductor canal block with local anesthetic have been used in multimodal pain management for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. Anesthesiologist-performed adductor canal blocks are costly, time consuming, and may be unreliable. We investigated the feasibility of a surgeon-performed saphenous nerve (“adductor-canal”) block from within the knee joint.

A retrospective analysis of 94 thigh-knee MRI studies was performed to determine the relationship between the width of the distal femur at the epicondylar axis and the proximal location of the saphenous nerve after its exit from the adductor canal and separation from the superficial femoral artery. After obtaining these data, TKA resections and trial component implantation were performed, using a medial parapatellar approach, in 11 fresh cadaveric lower extremity specimens. Using a blunt tip 1.5cm needle, we injected 10 ml each of two different colored solutions at two different intra-articular medial injection locations, and after 30 minutes, dissected the femoral and saphenous nerve and femoral artery from the hip to the knee to determine the location of the injections.

Based upon the MRI analysis, the saphenous nerve was located (and had exited the adductor canal) at a mean of 1.5 times the epicondylar width in females, and mean 1.3 times the epicondylar width in males, proximal to the medial epicondyle. After placement of TKA trial components and injection, the proximal injection site solution bathed the saphenous nerve in 8 of 11 specimens. The proximal blunt needle and solution was adjacent, but did not puncture, the femoral artery and vein in only one specimen. This study suggests that a surgeon-performed injection of the saphenous nerve from within the knee is a feasible procedure. This technique may be a useful alternative to ultrasound guided block. A trial comparing surgeon and anesthesiologist-performed nerve block should be considered to determine the clinical efficacy of this procedure. Our anecdotal use of this intra-articular injection over the past year has been favorable. Newer, extended release anesthetic agents should be investigated with this technique.

Surgical site infections constitute the cause of 13% to 18% of readmissions within 90 days of a total hip arthroplasty and are a leading cause of failure of revision total knee arthroplasty. The goals of wound closure are to enhance healing potential, prevent infection, and provide a cosmetic appearance. Traditionally, this has been achieved with the use of interrupted sutures. However, recently “barbed” sutures have been introduced which consist of a solid core with peripheral etched barbs in a helical array. These sutures have been used for both the deep and superficial layers of wound closure in a running fashion with the barbs intended to be self-retaining in the event that the suture is cut or pulls out of the tissue. Proposed advantages include the avoidance of knots, less needles required, improved efficiency, and creation of a “watertight” seal.

Numerous studies have shown decreased times for wound closure with the use of barbed vs. interrupted sutures with no difference in infection or complication rates. With less needles and improved efficiency, there is the potential for cost savings with the use of barbed sutures. However, there have been two studies raising concerns of arthrotomy failure with their use in total knee arthroplasty. In addition, several reports have noted the potential for increased superficial wound complications when barbed sutures are used for a subcutaneous closure. Therefore, what remains clear is that there is no proven, optimal method of wound closure in total joint arthroplasty and that every closure method remains technique dependent.

Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion preoperatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint.

In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 modular fixed-bearing, 4 metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 resurfacing onlay, 10 all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 mobile bearing designs; 5 knees failed due to infection, 5 due to wear and/or instability, 10 for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants or failure modes. Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome.

In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (average age: 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (2–262). The four most common reasons for failure were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (6–123). The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months.

In a current study from our center, 184 patients (193 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2015) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Mean age was 63.5 (37–84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19–57) kg/m², and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0–35) years. Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (42%), arthritic progression (20%) and tibial collapse (14%). At 6.1 years mean follow-up (2–20), 8 knees (4.1%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at most recent evaluation, respectively. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1).

Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA.

Following a careful in-depth preoperative plan for revision TKA, the first surgical step is adequate exposure. It is crucial to plan your exposure for all contingencies. Prior incisions have tremendous implications and care must be taken to consider their impact. Due to the medially based vascular supply to the skin and superficial tissues about the knee, consideration for use of the most LATERAL incision should be made. It is essential to avoid the development of flaps which may compromise the skin and soft tissue which can have profound implications.

Exposure options can be broken down into either PROXIMALLY based techniques or DISTALLY based options. The proximal based techniques involve a medial parapatella arthrotomy followed by the establishment of medial and lateral gutters. An assessment of the ability to evert or subluxate the patella should be made. Care must be taken to protect the insertion of the patella tendon into the tibial tubercle. If the patella is unable to be mobilised, then extension of arthrotomy proximal is performed. If this is not adequate, then consider inside out lateral release. If still unable to mobilise, then a QUAD SNIP is performed. In rare instances, you can connect the lateral release with quad snip resulting in a V-Y quadplasty, which results in excellent exposure.

Another option is to employ DISTALLY based techniques such as the tibial tubercle osteotomy technique described by Whiteside. A roughly 8cm osteotomy segment with distal bevel is performed. The osteotomy must be at least 1.5–2cm thick: too thin and risk of fracture increases. This approach leaves the lateral soft tissues intact and then a “greenstick” of the lateral cortex is performed with eversion of patella and the lateral sleeve of tissue. This technique is excellent for not only exposure but also in instances where tibial cement or a cementless tibial stem needs to be removed. Closure is accomplished with wires either through the canal or around the posterior cortex of the tibia.

Chronic extensor mechanism insufficiency around TKA is a very challenging pathology to treat. An insufficient extensor mechanism negatively affects implant survival and patient outcomes. There are several risk factors for extensor mechanism disruption and the surgeon should be aware and avoid these problems in the perioperative period. In appropriately selected patients, reconstruction of the extensor mechanism is a valid option. Whole extensor mechanism and Achilles tendon allograft reconstruction of the deficient extensor mechanism have been proposed with good early published results. These reconstructions, however, are expensive and with time may stretch and lead to recurrence of an extensor lag. An alternative to allograft, is the use of Marlex mesh as popularised by Browne and Hanssen. This technique uses a knitted monofilament polypropylene mesh that is secured to the patient's native lateral tissue and covered by an appropriately dissected and distalised vastus medialis muscle. The technique can be used for both patellar and quadriceps tendon deficiencies and can be done with or without implant revision and is currently the treatment of choice at the presenter's institution. The surgeon should be aware of the complexity and limitations of these three reconstructive techniques.

The battle of revision TKA is won or lost with safe, effective, and minimally bony-destructive implant removal, protecting all ligamentous stabilisers of the knee and, most importantly, the extensor mechanism. For exposure, incisions should be long and generous to allow adequate access. A standard medial parapatellar capsular arthrotomy is preferred. A synovectomy is performed followed by debridement of all scar tissue, especially in the medial and lateral gutters. All peripatellar scar tissue is excised followed by release of scar tissue within the patellar tendon, allowing for displacement or everting of the patella. As patellar tendon avulsion at any time of knee surgery yields disastrous results, the surgeon should be continuously evaluating the patellar tendon integrity, especially while displacing/everting the patella and bringing the knee into flexion. If displacement/eversion is difficult, consider rectis-snip, V-Y quadricepsplasty, or tibial tubercle osteotomy. The long-held requisite for patellar eversion prior to component removal is inaccurate. In most cases simple lateral patellar subluxation will provide adequate exposure.

If a modular tibial system is involved, removal of the tibial polyethylene will decompress the knee, allowing for easier access to patellar, femoral, and tibial components. For patellar component removal, first identify the border of the patella, then carefully clean and debride the interface, preferably with electrocautery. If the tibial component is cemented all-polyethylene, remove using an oscillating saw at the prosthetic-bone interface. Debride the remaining cement with hand tools, ultrasonic tools, or burrs. Remove the remaining peg using a low-speed burr. If the tibial component is metal-backed, then utilise a thin saw blade or reciprocating saw to negotiate the undersurface of the component between the pegs. If pegs are peripherally located, cut with a diamond disc circular cutting tool. Use a trephine to remove the pegs.

For femoral component removal, identify the prosthetic-bone/prosthetic-cement interface then remove soft tissue from the interface, preferably with electrocautery. Disrupt the interface around all aspects of the component, using any of following: Gigli saw for cementless components only, micro saw, standard oscillating saw, reciprocating saw, a series of thin osteotomes, or ultrasonic equipment. If the femoral component is stemmed, remove the component in two segments using an appropriate screwdriver to remove the screw locking the stem to the component. Remove the femoral component with a retrodriver or femoral component extractor. Debride cement with hand tools or burr, using care to avoid bone fracture. If a stem is present, then remove with the appropriate extraction device. If “mismatch” exists, where femoral (or likewise, tibial) boss is smaller in diameter than the stem, creating a cement block prohibiting stem removal, remove the cement with hand tools or burr. If the stem is cemented, use hand tools, ultrasonic tools, or a burr to debride the cement. Curette and clean the canals.

For tibial component removal, disrupt the prosthetic-cement/prosthetic-bone interface using an oscillating or reciprocating saw. Gently remove the tibial component with a retrodriver or tibial extractor. If stem extensions are utilised, disengage and debride all proximal cement prior to removing the stem. If stem is present, then remove stem with appropriate extraction device. If stem is grit-blasted and well-fixed, create 8mm burr holes 1.5 to 2.5cm distal to tibial tray on medial aspect and a small divot using burr, then drive implant proximally with Anspach punch. Alternatively, a tibial tubercle osteotomy may be performed. If the stem is cemented, use hand tools, ultrasonic tools or burr to debride cement.

Management of severe bone loss in total knee arthroplasty presents a formidable challenge. This situation may arise in neglected primary knee arthroplasty with large deformities and attritional bone loss, in revision situations where osteolysis and loosening have caused large areas of bone loss and in tumor situations. Another area of large bone loss is frequently seen in periprosthetic fractures.

Trabecular metal (TM) with its dodecahedron configuration and modulus of elasticity between cortical and cancellous bone offers an excellent bail out option in the management of these very difficult situations. Severe bone loss in the distal femur and proximal tibia lend themselves to receiving the TM cones. The host bone surfaces need to be prepared to receive these cones using a high speed burr. The cones acts as a filler with an interference fit through which the stemmed implant can be introduced and cemented. All areas of bone void is filled with morselised cancellous bone fragments.

We present our experience of 64 TM cones (28 femoral, 36 tibial cones) over a 10-year period and our results and outcomes for the same. We have had to revise only one patient for recurrence of the tumor for which the cone was implanted in the first place. We also describe our technique of using two stacked cones for massive distal femoral bone loss and its outcomes. We found excellent osteointegration and new host bone formation around the TM construct.

The purported role of possible resistance to infection in situations using the TM cones is also discussed.

In summary we believe that the use of the TM cones offers an excellent alternative to massive allografts, custom and/or tumor implants in the management of massive bone loss situations.

An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons is going to be evaluating primary and revision total hip and total knee replacements submitted by the audience. Participants will present the x-rays and clinical findings of difficult cases for which they are seeking an expert opinion from the panel. The panel will probably have conflicting opinions which will lead to an entertaining and educational session. The moderator will also provide some extremely challenging cases once again, to stimulate more controversy. This session has been very popular in the past and is fast moving, humorous and educational.

In years past, the most common reason for revision following knee replacement was polyethylene wear. A more recent study indicates that polyethylene wear is relatively uncommon as a cause for total knee revision counting for only 10% or fewer of revisions. The most common reason for revision currently is aseptic loosening followed closely by instability and infection. The time to revision was surprisingly short. In a recent series only 30% of knees were greater than 5 years from surgery at the time of revision. The most common time interval was less than 2 years. This is likely because of the higher incidence of infection and instability that occurs most commonly at a relatively early time frame. Evaluation of a painful total knee should take into account these findings. All total knees that are painful within 5 years of surgery should be assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. Therefore, virtually all should be aspirated for cell count, differential, and culture. Alpha-defensin is also available in cases in which a patient may have been on antibiotics within a month or less, as well as cases in which diagnosis is a challenge for some reason. Instability can be diagnosed with physical exam focusing on mid-flexion instability which can be usually determined with the patient seated and the knee in mid-flexion, with the foot flat on the floor at which point sagittal plane laxity can be discerned. This is also frequently associated with symptoms of giving way and recurring effusions and difficulty descending stairs. A new phenomenon of tibial de-bonding has been described, which can be a challenge to diagnose. Radiographs can appear normal when loosening occurs between the implant and the cement mantle. This seems to be more common with the use of higher viscosity cement. Obviously this is technique dependent since good results have been reported with the use of high viscosity cement. Component malposition can cause stiffness and pain and relatively good results have been reported by component revision when malrotation has been confirmed with CT scan. When infection, instability and loosening are not present, extra-articular causes should be ruled out including lumbar spine, vascular compromise, complex regional pain syndromes and fibromyalgia, and peri-articular causes such as bursitis, tendonitis, tendon impingement among others. One of the most common causes of pain following total knee is unrealistic patient expectations. Performing total knee replacement in early stages of arthritis with only mild to moderate symptoms and radiographic changes has been associated with persistent pain and dissatisfaction. It may be prudent to obtain the immediate preoperative x-rays to determine if early intervention was undertaken and patients have otherwise normal appearing total knee x-rays and a negative work up. A recent study indicated that this was likely a cause or a major contributing factor to persistent pain following otherwise a well performed knee replacement. A national multicenter study of the appropriateness of indications for TKA also indicated that early intervention was a major cause of persistent pain, dissatisfaction, and failure to improve following total knee replacement.

Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) necessitates disruption of well-vascularised tissue during exposure and soft tissue release as well as from the cutting of bone, and thus bleeding into the joint space routinely occurs to some degree following TKA. Defining a complication from bleeding is not necessarily straightforward, but includes 3 different conditions: hemarthrosis, hematoma, and bloody wound drainage. All of these conditions can be seen in the normal postoperative setting, and when mild, may be simply observed. However, persistent swelling resulting in clinical symptoms should be appropriately treated.

A hemarthrosis is defined as blood being contained in the knee capsule. Although some bleeding is expected, “excessive” hemarthrosis results in increased pain limiting or difficulty regaining motion. If high levels of fluid pressure are present, rupture of the arthrotomy may occur. A hematoma occurs when intra-articular blood escapes the arthrotomy and drains into the overlying soft tissues. This may occur following performance of a large lateral release or an insufficient arthrotomy closure or simply secondary to a large hemarthrosis under tension. Symptoms include ecchymosis, soft tissue swelling, and potential skin complications. Increased pain and limited range of motion frequently accompany these symptoms. Wound drainage may present as a knee that continues to have bloody or serous drainage that continues long after the first or second dressing change. It is this continued wound drainage that is most worrisome, with increased wound infection rates when prolonged drainage is allowed to persist.

While excessive bleeding during the early postoperative period is most common, isolated or recurrent hemarthrosis may occur long after recovery from surgery. The incidence of postoperative hemarthrosis is not well studied, but the need for surgical treatment is uncommon. Recurrent hemarthrosis is also relatively rare after TKA and has been reported at rates between 0.3% and 1.6%. The etiology of this complication can be systemic or local, and initial workup should include coagulation studies to rule out any underlying systemic coagulopathy. Conservative therapy including rest, cooling, and elevation is the preferred treatment for mild cases. If conservative treatment is not successful, or the acute hemarthrosis is clinically tense, interfering with recovery, or threatening wound healing, drainage may be the preferable option. This can be done by opening the arthrotomy in the operating room or through large bore arthroscopy cannulae. Careful attention to debridement of clotted blood must be followed by a meticulous search for potential sources of bleeding which should be managed appropriately.

Recurrent hemarthrosis may occur at any time but is not commonly diagnosed until the patient has left the early recovery period. Repeated bleeding episodes may lead to an inflammatory cascade that propagates bleeding events more readily. If coagulation studies are normal, the most common source is the impingement of proliferative synovium or other retained soft tissue between the articulating components of the knee prosthesis. Other causes may be multifactorial and synergistic but are not well understood, making diagnosis and treatment more difficult. If symptoms persist, classical treatment has consisted of open or arthroscopic synovectomy. Over the past decade angiography and angiographic embolization of the source of bleeding has been successful. In a recent meta-analysis including 99 patients, technical success rates of 99% were noted, though 2 cases became infected and 10 cases suffered recurrent bleeding episodes. Radio-active synovectomy has also been successful.

The etiology of the flexion contracture is related to recurrent effusions present in a knee with end-stage degenerative joint disease secondary to the associated inflammatory process. These recurrent effusions cause increased pressure in the knee causing pain and discomfort. Patients will always seek a position of comfort, which is slight flexion. Flexion decreases the painful stimulus by reducing pressure in the knee and relaxing the posterior capsule. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating process leads to a greater degree of contracture as the disease progresses. Furthermore, patients rarely maintain the knee in full extension. Even during the gait cycle the knee is slightly flexed. As their disease progresses, patients limit their ambulation and are more frequently in a seated position. Patients often report sleeping with a pillow under their knee or in the fetal position. All of these activities increase flexion contracture deformity. Patients with excessive deformity >40 degrees should be counseled regarding procedural complexity and that increasing constraint may be required. Patients are seen preoperatively by a physical therapist and given a pre-arthroplasty conditioning program. Patients with excessive flexion contracture are specifically instructed on stretching techniques, as well as quadriceps rehabilitation exercises.

The focus in the postoperative physiotherapy rehabilitation program continues toward the goal of full extension. Patients are instructed in appropriate stretching regimes. Patients are immobilised for the first 24 hours in full extension with plaster splints, such as with a modified Robert Jones dressing. This dressing is removed on postoperative day one. The patient is then placed in a knee immobiliser and instructed to wear it at bed rest, during ambulation and in the evening, only removing for ROM exercises. In cases of severe flexion deformity >30 degrees, patients are maintained in full extension for 3–4 weeks until ROM is begun. Patients are encouraged to use a knee immobiliser for at least the first 6 weeks postoperatively.

Treating patients with flexion contracture involves a combination of bone resection and soft tissue balance. One must make every effort to preserve both the femoral and tibial joint line. In flexion contracture the common error is to begin by resecting additional distal femur, which may result in joint line elevation and mid-flexion instability. The distal femoral resection should remove that amount of bone being replaced with metal. Attention should be directed at careful and meticulous balance of the soft tissues and release of the contracted posterior capsule with re-establishment of the posterior recess, which will correct the majority of flexion contractures.

Inability to achieve ROM after TKA represents a frustrating complication for both patient and surgeon. Non-operative treatments for the stiff TKA include shoe lift in contralateral limb, stationery bicycle with elevated seat position, extension bracing, topical application of hand-held instruments to areas of soft tissue-dysfunction by a trained physical therapist over several outpatient sessions, and use of a low load stretch device. Manipulation under anesthesia is indicated in patients after TKA having less than 90 degrees ROM after 6 weeks, with no progression or regression in ROM. Other operative treatments range from a downsizing exchange of the polyethylene bearing to revision with a constrained device and low-dose irradiation in cases of severe arthrofibrosis.

Infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can cause significant morbidity to the patient and be associated with significant costs and burdens to the healthcare system. Wound complications often initiate the cascade that can eventually lead to deep infection and implant failure. Galat et al. reported that wound complications following TKA requiring surgical treatment were associated with 2-year cumulative risks of major reoperation and deep infection of 5.3% and 6.0%, respectively. Consequently, developing a systematic approach to the management of wound problems following TKA can potentially minimise subsequent complications.

Unlike the hip, the vascular supply to the soft tissue envelope to the knee is less robust and more sensitive to the trauma of surgery. Therefore, proper soft tissue handling and wound closure at the time of surgery can minimise potential wound drainage and breakdown postoperatively. Kim et al. showed, using a meta-analysis of the literature, that primary skin closure with staples demonstrated lower wound complications, decreased closure times, and lower resource utilization compared to sutures. However, a running subcuticular closure enables the most robust skin perfusion following TKA. Finally, the use of hydrofiber surgical dressings following surgery was associated with increased patient comfort and satisfaction and reduced the incidence of superficial surgical site infection.

A wound complication following TKA needs to be managed systematically and aggressively. A determination of whether the extent of the involvement is superficial or deep is critical. Antibiotics should not be started without first excluding the possibility of a deep infection. Weiss and Krackow recommended return to the operating room for wound drainage persisting beyond 7 days. While incisional negative pressure wound therapy can occasionally salvage the “at risk” draining wound following TKA, its utilization should be limited only to the time immediately following surgery and should not delay formal surgical debridement, if indicated. Finally, early wound flap coverage and co-management of wound complications with plastic surgery is associated with increased rates of prosthesis retention and limb salvage.

The selection of a prophylaxis agent is a balance between efficacy and safety. Total knee arthroplasty patients receive DVT prophylaxis because orthopaedic surgeons are concerned about the morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary embolism. However, at the same time there is great concern about excessive bleeding. The goal is to provide the appropriate anticoagulation to prevent symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and DVT but at the same time avoid over anticoagulation which can be associated with bleeding and other wound problems. Therefore, risk stratification is necessary.

Although risk stratification is the ideal way to determine the appropriate prophylaxis agent to use for a specific patient, there is no validated risk stratification strategy available today. There is general agreement at this time that patients who have had a prior PE or symptomatic DVT are at higher risk for development of a pulmonary embolism. In addition, there is a general belief that patients who have coagulation abnormalities (i.e. Factor V Leiden, Protein C and S deficiency) have an increased risk of developing a pulmonary embolism. Other factors that have been mentioned as associated with PE after total hip arthroplasty include age, female gender, and higher body mass index. The selection of a prophylaxis regimen should be influenced by the ability to mobilise the patient after surgery.

Total knee arthroplasty is an excellent operation and the results have been well documented for both cemented and cementless techniques. It is generally accepted that the results for cemented total knee outpace the results for cementless total knees. Despite this there remains great interest in developing systems and techniques that might allow predictable biologic fixation for knee arthroplasty. There is a long list of requirements that must be met to predictably allow bone ingrowth. These include viable bone, optimal pore size, optimal pore depth, optimal porosity, minimal gaps between bone and implant and minimal micromotion. Implant design is critical but it is proposed that operative techniques can help with some of these issues. We will discuss these operative issues during the surgical demo. These technique issues include: replication of normal posterior slope of the tibia, irrigation of all cuts to avoid thermal necrosis, and application of autologous bone chips to interface - “bone slurry”.

These are obviously not all of the issues to consider but we feel they are some of the more important factors related to the cementless technique. The surgeon also has to be mindful of all of the other techniques that are essential to primary total knee arthroplasty. This demo will also utilise an ultracongruent bearing and with Vitamin E polyethylene.

Periprosthetic infection involving TKR has been projected to rise as the burden of implanted TKR continues to grow. A study by Kurtz et al. found a significant increase in the annual incidence of TKR infection, 2001 (2.05%) to 2.18% in 2009. Thus, deep prosthetic infection around a TKR remains a significant problem that has not been solved, even as technologies improve and the operation is more commonly performed.

The economic hospital cost of periprosthetic TKR infection is approximately $100,000 US for a two-stage removal and reimplantation; by the year 2020, it is estimated that 48,000 of these operations will be necessary. The total annual hospital cost for PJI treatment is expected to be over $1 billion by 2020, and does not include the doctor, pharmacologic, and physical therapy fees.

Many factors have been found to be associated with an increased risk of PJI. This lecture will focus upon the peri-, intra-, and post-operative factors that have been found historically to carry an increased or decreased risk of infection.

Preoperative factors that have been found to affect the risk of infection include: perioperative administration of intravenous antibiotics, patient nutrition, weight, and hemoglobin A1C in diabetic patients. Intraoperative factors include the duration of surgery, the use of antibiotic impregnated cement, and the use of dilute povidone/iodine solution irrigation. Postoperatively, wound care with antimicrobial agents, and a resistance to transfusing blood seem to lower the risk of infection.

Yang et al. found that diabetes mellitus carried a 1.6x greater risk of TKR infection, in a meta-analysis of 11 cohort studies. In a registry study of over 32,000 TKA, increasing BMI from 25 kg/m2 to 35 kg/m2 was found to be associated with a greater risk of wound infection in TKR patients, increasing from 3 to 4.1%. Preoperative colonization with MRSA has been found by several investigators to be a risk for surgical site infection, despite attempts at eradication.

Operatively, a wash of the surgical site for 3 minutes with a dilute solution of betadine has been found by Brown et al. to have decreased the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection from 0.97% to 0.15%.

Postoperatively, the type of dressing placed over the incision may play a role; Grosso et al. found a significantly reduced rate of PJI (0.33% vs. 1.58%) when a silver impregnated, antimicrobial, dressing was used as compared to standard xeroform gauze. Finally, patients who received an allogeneic blood transfusion were found to have a higher risk of PJI (1.67%) than those who did not (0.72%).

The AAOS clinical practice guideline for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and the MSIS definition of PJI were both “game changers” in terms of diagnosing PJI and the reporting of outcomes for research. However, the introduction of new diagnostic modalities, including biomarkers, prompted a re-look at the diagnostic criteria for PJI. Further there was a desire to develop an evidence-based, validated algorithm for the diagnosis of PJI.

This multi-institutional study led by Dr. Jay Parvizi examined revision total joint arthroplasty patients from three academic institutions. For development of the algorithm, infected and aseptic cohorts were defined. PJI cases were defined using only the major criteria from the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition (n=684). Aseptic cases underwent revision for a non-infective indication and did not show evidence of PJI or undergo a reoperation for any reason within 2 years (n=820). Risk factors, clinical findings, serum and synovial markers as well as intraoperative findings were assessed. A stepwise approach using random forest analysis and multivariate regression was used to generate relative weights for each of the various variables assessed at each stage to create an algorithm for diagnosing PJI using the 3 most important tests from each step. The algorithm was formally validated on a separate cohort of 422 patients, 222 who were treated with a 2-stage exchange for PJI who subsequently failed secondary to PJI within one year and 200 patients who underwent revision surgery for an aseptic diagnosis and had no evidence of PJI within two years and did not undergo a reoperation for any reason.

The first step in evaluating PJI should include a physical examination to identify a sinus tract, followed by serum testing for C-reactive protein (cut-off value 1mg/dl), D-dimer (cut-off value 860ng/mL) and/or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (cut-off value 30mm/hr) in that order of importance. If at least one of these are elevated, or if there is a high clinical suspicion, joint aspiration should be performed, sending the fluid obtained for a synovial fluid white blood-cell (cut-off value 3,000 wbc/uL) or leukocyte esterase strip testing, polymorphonuclear percentage (cut-off value 80%) and culture. Alpha defensin did not show added benefit as a routine diagnostic test.

Major diagnostic criteria are the same whereby the presence of a sinus tract or (2) positive cultures showing the same organism defines PJI.

Special care should be taken in cases of ALTR (failed metal-on-metal bearing), crystalline deposition disease, inflammatory arthritis flares or slow growing organisms.

In the rare cases where no fluid is obtained at the time of an attempted aspiration and revision surgery is not planned, then this is the rare scenario where nuclear imaging (my preference is an indium labeled white blood cell scan) or a biopsy can be performed.

The updated definition of PJI demonstrated a higher sensitivity of 97.7% when compared to the MSIS criteria (79.3%) and the ICM definition (86.9%), with a similar specificity of 99.5%. However, just over 2% of patients examined do fall into the “inconclusive” category.

The proposed diagnostic algorithm demonstrated a high overall sensitivity (96.9%) and specificity (99.5%).

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication affecting >1% of all total knee arthroplasties, with compromise in patient function and high rates of morbidity and mortality. There are also major socioeconomic implications. Diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical features, laboratory tests (including serum and articular samples) and diagnostic imaging. Once confirmed, prompt management is required to prevent propagation of the infection and further local damage. Non-operative measures include patient resuscitation, systemic antibiotics, and wound management, but operative intervention is usually required. Definitive surgical management requires open irrigation and debridement of the operative site, with or without exchange arthroplasty in either a single or two-stage approach. In all options, the patient's fitness, comorbidities and willingness for further surgery should be considered, and full intended benefits and complications openly discussed. Late infection almost invariably leads to implant removal but early infections and acute haematogenous infections can be managed with implant retention – the challenge is to retain the original implant, having eradicated infection and restored full function.

Debridement with component retention: Open debridement is indicated for acute postoperative infections or acute haematogenous infections with previously well-functioning joints. To proceed with this management option the following criteria must be met: short duration of symptoms - ideally less than 2–3 weeks but up to 6; well-fixed and well-positioned prostheses; healthy surrounding soft tissues. Open debridement is therefore not an appropriate course of management if symptoms have been prolonged – greater than 6 weeks, if there is a poor soft tissue envelope and scarring, or if a revision arthroplasty would be more appropriate due to loosening or malposition of the implant. It is well documented in the literature that there is an inverse relationship between the duration of symptoms and the success of a debridement. It is thought that as the duration of symptoms increases, other factors such as patient comorbidities, soft tissue status and organism virulence play an increasingly important role in determining the outcome.

There is a caveat. Based on our learning in the hip, when we see an acute infection where periprosthetic implants are used, it is much easier to use this time-limited opportunity to remove the implants and the associated biofilm and do a single-stage revision instead of just doing a debridement and a change of insert. This will clearly be experience and prosthesis-dependent but if the cementless implant is easy to remove, then it should be explanted. One critical aspect of this procedure is to use one set of instruments and drapes for the debridement and to then implant the new mobile parts and close using fresh drapes and clean instruments. Units that have gained expertise in single-stage revision will find this easier to do. After a debridement, irrigation, and change of insert, patients continue on intravenous antibiotics until appropriate cultures are available. Our multidisciplinary team and infectious disease experts then take over and will dictate antibiotic therapy thereafter. This is typically continued for a minimum of three months. Patients are monitored clinically, serologically, and particularly in relation to nutritional markers and general wellbeing. Antibiotics are stopped when the patients reach a stable level and are well in themselves. All patients are advised to re-present if they have an increase in pain or they feel unwell.

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static vs. articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years.

At our institution our choice of spacer for 2 stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat 2 stage, overall infection control was 98%. In addition, we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores.

While the articulated spacer was our treatment of choice in 2 stage exchange around 2012, the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes.

More recently as of Sept 2015 we have used an all polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 28 of these and in 80% of cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practi

The infected TKA is one of the most challenging complications of knee surgery, but spacers can make them easier to treat. An articulating spacer allows weight bearing and range of motion of the knee during rehabilitation. This spacer is made using antibiotic-impregnated bone cement applied to the tibial and femoral implants. For our purpose, 4.8g powdered tobramycin is mixed with 2gm vancomycin and one batch of antibiotic. Cement is applied early to the components, but applied late to the femur, tibia, and patella to allow molding to the defects and bone without solid adherence to bone. Patients have tailored intravenous antibiotic therapy for 6 weeks for treatment of various gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. At 10–12 weeks patients are revised to a cemented revision total knee arthroplasty using standard cementing techniques. From our experience, range of motion before reimplantation was 5 – 90 degrees. Follow-up averaged 73 months for fifty patients with 90% good to excellent results; 10% had a recurrence of infections. Use of an articulating spacer achieves soft tissue compliance, allows for ease of re-operation, reduced postoperative pain, improved function, and eradicates infection equal to standards reported in the literature.

The keys to revision total knee arthroplasty start with understanding the nature of the problem. Revision TKR is a major undertaking and should be focused on problem solving. Know the problem and remember pain is not a diagnosis. Review history of the problem and think of the possibilities: infection, loosening, instability, stiffness, malalignment, and poor kinematics.

Ensure an adequate workup including an adequate history, exam and imaging including radiographs, MRI for soft tissue issues, and CT scans to assess rotational alignment. Labs should include CBC, ESR, C-reactive protein, and an aspiration including cell count and culture.

Synthesise a working diagnosis and formulate a provisional plan to include what is to be revised, how will you get there remembering old incisions, and how will get the parts out? Think about equipment: what tools do you need and implant specific tools.

Finally, once everything is out, think about what you have left (soft tissue defects and bone defects) to “rebuild”? This involves pondering constraint for soft tissue defects, stems for mechanical stability, cones, augments, bone graft for osseous defects and fixation.

Modifiable factors contributing to stiffness include alignment, implant size, implant position and rotation, and soft tissue tightness or laxity. Less modifiable factors include genetics as in predisposition to inflammation and fibrosis, aberrations in perception and experience of emotional pain, and preoperative range of motion.

We reviewed 559 knees undergoing revision between 2007 and 2014, selecting out patients with a diagnosis of stiffness and greater than one-year follow-up. Stiffness was defined as greater than 15 degrees of flexion contracture or less than 75 degrees of flexion or less than 90 degrees of active motion and a chief complaint of limited motion and pain. Radiographic analysis used a set of matched controls with greater than 90 degrees and full extension prior to surgery and were further matched by age, gender, BMI.

Flexion contracture changed from an average of 9.7 to an average of 2.3 degrees, flexion changed from an average of 81 to an average of 94 degrees, active motion changed from an average of 72 to an average of 92 degrees, pain scores improved from 44 to 72 points, and Knee Society function scores improved from an average of 49 to an average of 70 points. There were four failures for stiffness, two knees underwent additional manipulation, gaining an average of 10 degrees; and two knees were revised.

Radiographic analysis demonstrated stiffness to be strongly correlated to anterior condylar offset ratio and to patellar displacement by multivariant regression analysis, suggesting that overstuffing the patellofemoral joint by anteriorization of the femoral component is associated with stiffness. Using modern revision techniques, revision for stiffness creates reliable improvements in pain, Knee Society clinical and functional scores, and motion.

Instability after TKA can result from ligament imbalance, attenuation of soft tissues, or ligament disruption. Flexion instability has been reported after both CR and PS TKA. However, the clinical manifestations of flexion instability can be quite variable. Symptoms of flexion instability include pain and swelling after activity. Bracing occasionally can be helpful. Revision options to treat flexion instability include tibial insert exchange and revision to increase constraint. However, more favorable results have been reported using implants with varus-valgus constraint.

Constrained mechanisms include a varus-valgus constrained PS post or hinge. The constrained post relies on the mechanical function of the post to provide stability which may deform or wear in-vivo leading to recurrent instability if used for a completely deficient collateral ligament. The hinge, which provides more rigid constraint, is indicated for collateral ligament deficiency. However, the additional constraint also results in greater bone-implant interface stresses, which may be mitigated by use of stem fixation to minimise risk of loosening.

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases, the TKA is well fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For fractures above well-fixed components, internal fixation is preferred. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral plating. Nails are typically considered in arthroplasties that allow intercondylar access (“open box PS” or CR implants) and have sufficient length of the distal fragment to allow multiple locking screws to be used. This situation is rare, as most distal fragments are quite short. If a nail is chosen, use of a long nail is preferred, since it allows the additional fixation and alignment that diaphyseal fill affords. Short nails should be discouraged since they can “toggle” in the meta-diaphysis and do not engage the diaphysis to improve coronal alignment. Plates can be used with any implant type and any length of distal fragment. The challenge with either fixation strategy is obtaining stable fixation of the distal fragment while maintaining length, alignment, and rotation. Fixation opportunities in the distal fragment can be limited due to obstacles caused by femoral component lugs, boxes, stems, cement mantles, and areas of stress shielding or osteolysis. Modern lateral locked plates can be inserted in a biologically friendly submuscular extra-periosteal fashion. The goal of fixation is to obtain as many long locked screws in the distal fragment as possible. High union rates have been reported with modern locked plating and nailing techniques, however, biplanar fluoroscopic vigilance is required to prevent malalignments, typically valgus, distraction, and distal fragment hyperextension.

For certain fractures, distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a wise choice. The author reserves DFR for situations where internal fixation is likely to fail (severe distal osteolysis, severe osteopenia) or for cases where it has already failed (nonunion). Obviously, if the implant is loose, revision is indicated, and typically the distal bone loss is so severe that a distal femoral replacement is indicated. The author prefers cemented constructs and routinely adds antibiotics to the cement mixture. Careful attention to posterior dissection of the distal fragment is recommended to avoid neurovascular injury. Cementing the femoral component in the proper amount of external rotation is important to allow central patellar tracking. The available literature demonstrates excellent functional results with these reconstructions, however, complications are not uncommon. Infection and extensor mechanism complications are the most frequent complications and are best avoided.

In summary, ORIF remains the treatment of choice for these fractures, however, for cases where ORIF is likely to fail, or has failed, DFR remains a predictable salvage option.

The amount of bone loss due to implant failure, loosening, or osteolysis can vary greatly and can have a major impact on reconstructive options during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Massive bone loss can threaten ligamentous attachments in the vicinity of the knee and may require use of components with additional constraint to compensate for associated ligamentous instability. Classification of bone defects can be helpful in predicting the complexity of the reconstruction required and in facilitating preoperative planning and implant selection. One very helpful classification of bone loss associated with TKA is the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Bone Defect Classification System as it provides the means to compare the location and extent of femoral and tibial bone loss encountered during revision surgery. In general, the higher grade defects (Type IIb or III) on both the femoral and tibial sides are more likely to require stemmed components, and may require the use of either structural graft or large augments to restore support for currently available modular revision components. Custom prostheses were previously utilised for massive defects of this sort, but more recently have been supplanted by revision TKA component systems with or without special metal augments or structural allograft. Options for bone defect management are: 1) Fill with cement; 2) Fill with cement supplemented by screws or K-wires; 3) Morselised bone grafting (for smaller, especially contained cavitary defects); 4) Small segment structural bone graft; 5) Impaction grafting; 6) Porous metal cones or sleeves 7) Massive structural allograft-prosthetic composites; 8) Custom implants. Of these, use of uncemented highly porous metal metaphyseal cones in combination with an initial cemented or partially cemented implant has been shown to provide versatile and highly durable results for a range of bone defects including those previously requiring structural bone graft. The hybrid fixation combination of both cement and cementless fixation of an individual tibial or femoral component has emerged as a frequent and often preferred technique. Initial secure and motionless interfaces are provided by the cemented portions of the construct, while subsequent bone ingrowth to the cementless porous metal portions is the key to long term stable fixation. As bone grows into the porous portions there is off loading and protection of the cemented interfaces from mechanical stresses. While maximizing support on intact host bone has been a longstanding fundamental principle of revision arthroplasty, this is facilitated by the use of metaphyseal cones or sleeves in combination with initial fixation into the adjacent diaphysis. Preoperative planning is facilitated by good quality radiographs, supplemented on occasion by additional imaging such as CT. Fluoroscopically controlled x-ray views may assist in diagnosing the loose implant by better revealing the interface between the implant and bone and can facilitate accurate delineation of the extent of bone deficiency present. Part of the preoperative plan is to ensure adequate range and variety of implant choices and bone graft resources for the planned reconstruction allowing for the potential for unexpected intraoperative findings such as occult fracture through deficient periprosthetic bone. While massive bone loss may compromise ligamentous attachment to bone, in the majority of reconstructions, the degree of revision implant constraint needed for proper balancing and restoration of stability is independent of the bone defect. Thus, some knees with minimal bone deficiency may require increased constraint due to the status of the soft tissues while others involving very large bone defects, especially of the cavitary sort, may be well managed with minimal constraint.

Stems provide short- and long-term stability to the femoral and tibial components. Poorer epiphyseal and metaphyseal bone quality will require sharing or offloading the femoral and tibial component interfaces with a stem. One needs to use stem technique most appropriate for each individual case because of variable anatomy and bone loss situations. The conflict with trying to obtain stability via the stem is that most stems are cylindrical but femoral and tibial metaphyseal/diaphyseal areas are conical in shape. Viable stem options include fully cemented short and long stems, uncemented long stems, offset uncemented stems, and a hybrid application of a cemented proximal end of longer uncemented diaphyseal engaging stems.

Stems are not without their risk. The more the load is transferred to the cortex, the greater the risk of proximal interface stress shielding. A long uncemented stem has similar stress shielding as a short cemented stem. Long diaphyseal engaging stems that are cemented or uncemented have the potential to have end of stem pain, especially if more diaphyseal reaming is done to obtain greater cortical contact. A conical shaped long stem can provide more stability than a long cylindrical stem and avoid diaphyseal reaming. Use of long stems may create difficulty in placement of the tibial and femoral components in an optimal position. If the femoral or tibial components do not allow an offset stem insertion, using a long offset stem or short cemented stem is preferred. The amount of metaphyseal bone loss will drive the choice of stem used. Short cemented stems will not have good stability in poor metaphyseal bone without getting the cement out to the cortex. Long cemented stems provide satisfactory survivorship, however, most surgeons avoid cementing long stems due to the difficulty of removal, if a subsequent revision is required. If the metaphyseal bone is excellent, use of a short cemented stem or long uncemented stem can be expected to have good results. Long fully uncemented stems must have independent stability to be effective, or should be proximally cemented as a hybrid technique. Cases with AOI type IIb and III tibial and femoral defects are best managed with use of metaphyseal cones with short cemented stems or long hybrid straight or offset stems. Some studies also suggest that if the cone is very stable, no stem may be required.

My preference is to use a short cemented stem or hybrid conical stem in patients with good metaphyseal bone. If significant metaphyseal bone loss is present, I will use a porous cone with either a short cemented stem, hybrid cylindrical or offset stem depending on the primary stability of the cone and whether the femoral or tibial component can be placed in an optimal position in patients with good metaphyseal bone.

Papers to be discussed during this session include: Surgical approach and THA results - does it matter?; Minimizing infection in TJA - doing all you can….; I&D or Revision, 1 vs. 2 stage for infected TKA - now or later?; Barbed sutures - friend or foe?; Constraint in TKA - promises and pitfalls!; Tendonitis after THA - minimizing the pain; MRI after THA - when and why…….; Pain, opioids, and outcomes - sorting fact from fictions!; Outpatient TKA - home free?; TKA in general - does home matter?; Drainage after TKA - mopping up the mess!; Head size in THA - does it matter, help or hurt?; Hip bone connected to the spine bone - so what!; Tourniquet in TKA - does it make a difference?; Standardise or personalise? - that is the question!; Trusting the robot - really?; The TKA - rotation, rotation, rotation.

The goals of a total knee arthroplasty include approximation of the function of a normal knee and achievement of balance post-surgery. Accurate bone preparation and the preservation of natural ligaments along with a functional knee design, holds the potential to provide a method of restoring close to normal function.

Although conventional knee arthroplasty is considered a successful intervention for end-stage osteoarthritis, some patients still experience reduced functionality and in some cases, require revision procedures. With conventional manual techniques, accurate alignment of the tibial component has been difficult to achieve. Even in the hands of skilled knee surgeons, outliers beyond 2 degrees of the desired alignment may occur in as many as 40%-60% of cases using conventional methods, and the range of component alignment varies considerably.

Similarly, for total knee replacement outliers beyond 2 degrees of the desired alignment may occur in as many as 15% of cases in the coronal plane, going up to 40% of unsatisfactory alignment in the sagittal plane.

Robotics-assisted arthroplasty has gained increasing popularity as orthopaedic surgeons aim to increase accuracy and precision of implant positioning. With advances in computer generated data, with image free data, surgeons have the ability to better predict and influence surgical outcomes. Based on planned implant position and soft tissue considerations, robotics-assisted systems can provide surgeons with virtual tools to make informed decisions for knee replacement, specific to the needs of the patient.

Here, for the first time in a live surgical setting, we assess the accuracy and technique of a novel imageless semiautonomous handheld robotic surgical technique in bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty (Navio, Smith and Nephew). The system supports image-free anatomic data collection, intraoperative surgical planning and execution of the plan using a combination of robotic burring and saw cut guides.

The brief answer is no….I do not believe that outpatient total joint arthroplasty is the emergent standard of care. However, for some patients and some surgeons I do believe that outpatient total joint arthroplasty can be performed safely and with greater comfort and convenience for the patient. Further, for the surgeon, it can provide greater control over the care environment if performed at an ambulatory surgery center.

Patient selection is paramount in my opinion for safely performing outpatient total joint arthroplasty. While some have attempted to define specific criteria, our own criteria include patients with simple orthopaedic problems who are healthy, trustworthy and have a good support system of family or friends to assist them.

As surgeons we must also be self-aware as the margin for error, particularly at a freestanding ambulatory surgery center, is narrow. Operative times should be reliably brief and blood loss should be minimal to allow for a safe discharge on the same day. Further the incidence of intraoperative complications such as fractures at the time of total hip arthroplasty or ligament injuries during total knee arthroplasty should be low. The surgeon should also be prepared with the equipment to address these common issues, if they do occur.

In our review of the NSQIP data set we matched 1,236 outpatient TJA 1:1 with inpatients based on propensity scores. The risk of 30-day readmissions and complications was no different between groups, although inpatients had a higher rate of VTE and outpatients had a higher risk of re-operation. Risk factors for adverse events included patient age > 85 years old, diabetes and BMI > 35. Likewise in a review of results from my own practice, we have seen no difference in the risk of complications.

As health care providers we must keep the safety of our patients paramount at all times. Further, we must be fiscally responsible to avoid costly complications, reoperations and readmissions. With conservative patient selection and careful surgical technique I believe that outpatient TJA offers an attractive alternative that is safe, cost effective and associated with high satisfaction for both patients and surgeons.

Arthrosis of the hip joint can be a significant source of pain and dysfunction. While hip replacement surgery has emerged as the gold standard for the treatment of end stage coxarthrosis, there are several non-arthroplasty management options that can help patients with mild and moderate hip arthritis. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review early prophylactic interventions that may help defer or avoid hip arthroplasty.

Nonoperative management for the symptomatic hip involves minimizing joint inflammation and maximizing joint mobility through intra-articular joint injections and exercise therapy. While weight loss, activity modifications, and low impact exercises is generally recommended for patients with arthritis, the effects of these modalities on joint strength and mobility are highly variable. Intra-articular steroid injections tended to offer reliable short-term pain relief (3–4 weeks) but provided unreliable long-term efficacy. Additionally, injections of hyaluronic acid do not appear to provide improved pain relief compared to other modalities. Finally, platelet rich plasma injections do not perform better than HA injections for patients with moderate hip joint arthrosis.

Primary hip joint arthrosis is rare, and therefore treatment such as peri-acetabular osteotomies, surgical dislocations, and hip arthroscopy and related procedures are aimed to minimise symptoms but potentially aim to alter the natural history of hip diseases. The state of the articular cartilage at the time of surgery is critical to the success or failure of any joint preservation procedures. Lech et al. reported in a series of dysplastic patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomies that one third of hips survived 30 years without progression of arthritis or conversion to THA. Similarly, surgical dislocation of the hip, while effective for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, carries a high re-operation rate at 7 years follow up. Finally, as the prevalence of hip arthroscopic procedures continues to rise, it is important to recognise that failure to address the underlying structural pathologies can lead to failure and rapid joint destruction.

In summary, several treatment modalities are available for the management of hip pain and dysfunction in patients with a preserved joint space. While joint preservation procedures can help improve pain and function, they rarely alter the natural history of hip disease. The status of the articular cartilage at the time of surgery is the most important predictor of treatment success or failure.

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different. In the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group.

Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success.

The author's personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups.

The author's current indication for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection.

Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component.

The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is an extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000.

A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems, unfortunately, may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however, it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA.

Total hip arthroplasty has become one of the most successful orthopaedic procedures with long-term survival rate. An ever-increasing acceptance of the potential longevity of THA systems has contributed to an increasing incidence of THA in younger and more active patients. Nowadays, especially in younger patients, cementless THA is the favored method worldwide.

Since the first cementless THA in late 1970s, many implant designs and modifications have been made. Despite excellent long-term results for traditional straight cementless stems, periprosthetic fractures or gluteal insufficiency are still a concern. For instance, as reported in a meta-analysis by Masonis and Bourne, the incidence of gluteal insufficiency after THA varies between 4% and 22%.

In contrast, the flattened lateral profile of the SP-CL^® anatomical cementless stem can protect the greater trochanter during the use of cancellous bone compressors and can avoid gluteal insufficiency after THA. Another benefit of this stem design is the rotational stability and the natural load transfer due to the anatomical concept. In this context, we report our experiences using the SP-CL^® anatomical cementless stem. The study group consists of 1452 THA cases (850 male, 602 female) with an average age of 62 years (range 25–76 years). After a mean follow-up of 20 months, in seven cases (0.5%) a stem exchange was necessitated. The reason for stem revision was periprosthetic fracture in 4 cases (0.3%) and periprosthetic joint infection in three cases (0.2%). In five patients, hip dislocation and in four patients migration of the stem occurred. However, stem exchange was not required in those cases.

In conclusion, the SP-CL^® anatomical cementless stem has excellent short-term results.

In a recent study, 54.5% of patients reporting to arthroplasty clinics in the US were obese. We performed a recent literature review to determine how obesity impacts outcomes in total hip and knee arthroplasty and what must be done to improve outcomes in the obese arthroplasty patient.

Specifically, obese patients have shown increased rates of infection, dislocation, need for revision, wound dehiscence, increased operative time and prolonged hospital stay. Additionally, obese TKA patients have been shown to have increased rates of aseptic loosening, thromboembolic events, wound complications, and cardiopulmonary events.

Worsening severity of obesity seems to correlate with worsening outcomes and super obesity (BMI>50) has been identified as an independent risk factor for complications. Patients with BMI>35 have shown to be 6.7 times more likely to develop infection after TKA. Patients with BMI>40 have a 3.35 times higher rate of revision for deep infection than those with BMI<35. The odds ratio for major complications increases dramatically beyond BMI>45.

How can we improve outcomes in the obese patient? Preoperative care for the obese patient involves nutritional counseling, incorporating weight loss methods, physical therapy, metabolic workup and diagnosis and management of frequent comorbid conditions (OSA, DM2, HTN, HLD, malnutrition, renal failure). Identifying and managing comorbidities is especially important given that some comorbidities such as malnutrition have been shown to be as strong or even stronger an independent risk factor for postoperative TJA complications than obesity. In some cases higher complications were seen which some authors attribute to bariatric patients remaining in a catabolic state after weight loss.  

We know that obesity and its associated comorbid conditions do have worse outcomes and increased complications in TJA patients. We also know that complications proportionately increase with increasing severity of obesity. The super-obese population is at the greatest risk of complication following TJA and preoperative screening and management is essential in reducing complications. Although weight loss is important, bariatric data has shown that it does not solve the problem of obesity in itself and the patient's metabolic state is likely a more important issue. Implant selection is important and strong consideration should be given to avoiding direct anterior approach in the THA obese patient. Understanding of obesity specific complications and treatment options is crucial for patient counseling and optimization to ensure successful treatment in obese TJA patients.

Important issues related to total hip replacement for dysplasia are: placement of the cup and bone stock, the role of femoral osteotomy, and the choice of acetabular and femoral components.

The cup can be placed at the correct or near correct anatomical level with or without a bone graft, in a high position (high hip center) or at the right level in a protruded position. All three techniques can provide adequate coverage of the cup. In the high hip position bone graft is not usually necessary to obtain cup coverage. There is, however, a higher rate of component loosening, a higher dislocation rate, and lengthening is limited to the femoral side. Placing the cup in a protruded position to obtain coverage does not restore bone stock for future surgery, but it does place the hip at the correct level. Placing the cup in the correct anatomical position (i.e. at the right level and not protruded) may require a structural autograft which adds to the complexity of the case. However, bone stock is restored for future surgery. Revision of acetabular components that have had a shelf graft have a survivorship of 96.5% at 10 years and only 5 of 34 required structural support (2 augments, 3 structural allografts).

Femoral osteotomy may be used as part of the exposure for diaphyseal shortening or for derotation of excessive anteversion. The osteotomy is carried out in the sub-trochanteric region and may be oblique, step-cut or transverse. Fixation of the osteotomy is achieved via the stem, a plate, or a cortical strut.

Cementless components are usually used because of the relatively young age of this patient population. Small components may be necessary. On the femoral side, the stem should be straight or modular so excessive anteversion can be neutralised.

Management of symptomatic osteonecrosis of the hip includes either some type of head preservation procedure or a total hip arthroplasty (THA). In general, once there is collapse of the femoral head, femoral head preservation procedures have limited success. There are a number of different femoral head preservation procedures that are presently performed and there is no consensus regarding which one is most effective. These procedures involve a core decompression with some type of vascularised or nonvascularised grafting of the femoral head. Core decompression with bone grafting of the femoral head with stem cells harvested from the iliac crest and vascularised fibula grafts are the two most popular femoral head preservation procedures.

Once the femoral head has collapsed then a THA should be performed when the patient has significant disability. In the past, total hip arthroplasty in osteonecrosis patients was not considered a highly successful procedure because it was performed in younger patients (most patients are younger than fifty years of age) and longevity was limited by wear and osteolysis. The advent of reliable cementless acetabular and femoral fixation and alternative bearing surfaces (i.e. highly crosslinked polyethylene liners) has been associated with improved outcomes and enhanced longevity. THA is considered the procedure of choice even for young patients (less than 30 years old) with collapse of the femoral head and significant pain and disability.

The most common classification of periprosthetic femoral fractures is the Vancouver classification. The classification has been validated by multiple centers. Fractures are distinguished by location, stability of the femoral component, and bone quality. Although postoperative and intraoperative fractures are classified using the same three regions, the treatment algorithm is slightly different.

Type A fractures involve the greater and lesser trochanter. Fractures around the stem or just distal to the stem are Type B and subcategorised depending on stem stability and bone quality. Type C fractures are well distal to the stem and are treated independent of the stem with standard fixation techniques. The majority of fractures are either B1 (stable stem) or B2 (unstable stem). The stem is retained and ORIF of the fracture performed for B1 fractures. B2 and B3 fractures require stem revision with primary stem fixation distal to the fracture.

Intraoperative fractures use the same A, B, C regions but are subtyped 1–3 as cortical perforations, nondisplaced, and displaced unstable fractures, respectively. With the exception of A1 intraoperative fractures all other intraoperative fractures require surgical treatment.

A recent publication utilizing a New York state registry highlighted the patient risk of mortality associated with periprosthetic hip fractures. One month, 6 month and 1 year mortality was 3.2%, 3.8% and 9.7%, respectively. The mortality risk was lower for periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF at 1 and 6 months compared to fractures requiring revision total hip.

This session will be practically oriented, focusing on important surgical decisions and on technical tips to avoid complications. The panel will be polled concerning individual preferences as regards the following issues in primary total hip arthroplasty: 1. Perioperative antibiotics; 2. Blood management and tranexamic acid protocols; 3. Surgical indications: high BMI patients; 4. Surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: indications or preferences for direct anterior, anterolateral, posterior; 5. Acetabular fixation; 6. Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation; 7. Femoral fixation: (a) Indications for cemented and uncemented implants. Case examples will be used.; (b) Is there still a role for hip resurfacing?; 8. Femoral material and size: (a) Preferred head sizes and materials in different situations.; (b) Is there a role for dual mobility implants in primary THA?; 9. Bearing surface: present role of different bearings. Case examples will be used. 10. Tips for optimizing intraoperative hip stability; 11. Tips for optimizing leg length; 12. Postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; 13. Heterotopic bone prophylaxis; 14. Postoperative pain management; 15. Hospital discharge: is there a role for outpatient surgery?; 16. Postoperative rehabilitation protocol: weight bearing, role of physical therapy; 17. Postoperative activity restrictions; hip dislocation precautions; 18. Is there value to physical therapy as outpatient after THA?; 19. Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures.

Over the past 15 years Anterior Approach (AA) THA has shown a dramatic increase in adoption by surgeons (over 30%) and choice by patients with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of hips performed with traditional posterior and lateral approaches.

I began AA in 1996 in order to solve the classic problems of potential dislocation associated with posterior approach and potential abductor weakness associated with the lateral (Harding) approach. Surgeon education on AA began in 2013 and has accelerated since.

AA is usually performed with the aid of an orthopaedic table which facilitates exposure though many cases are also performed on a standard operating table. Intraoperative image intensification has provided real-time feedback and accuracy for cup position leg length and offset and is facilitated by the supine position and a radiolucent orthopaedic table, however, AA can be performed without it.

Earlier functional recovery with decreased post-operative pain is the best documented benefit of AA as well as decreased dislocation rate.

My own point of view is to take advantage of a switch to AA to improve more than your surgical approach. Improve also hip biomechanics, cup position, ease of surgery, bone preparation, and soft tissue handling. A proven and repeatable technique and use of available technologies will facilitate this.

Total knee replacement (TKA) is one of the most successful procedures in orthopaedic surgery. Although originally limited to more elderly and less active individuals, the inclusion criteria for TKA have changed, with ever younger, more active and heavier patients receiving TKA. This broadening of indications coincided with the widespread adoption of modular cemented and cementless TKA systems in the 1980's, and soon thereafter wear debris related osteolysis and associated prosthetic loosening became major modes of failure for TKA implants of all designs.

Initially, tibial components were cemented all polyethylene monoblock constructs. Subsequent long-term follow-up studies of some of these implant designs have demonstrated excellent durability in survivorship studies out to twenty years. While aseptic loosening of these all polyethylene tibial components was a leading cause of failure in these implants, major polyethylene wear-related osteolysis around well-fixed implants was rarely (if ever) observed.

Cemented metal-backed nonmodular tibial components were first introduced to allow for improved tibial load distribution and protection of the underlying (often osteoporotic) bone. Eventually, modularity between the polyethylene tibial component and the metal-backed tray was introduced in the mid-80s mainly to facilitate screw fixation for cementless implants. These designs also provided intraoperative versatility by allowing interchange of various polyethylene thicknesses, and also aided the addition of stems and wedges.

Modular vs. All Polyethylene Tibial Components in Primary TKA: Kremers et al. reviewed 10,601 adult (>18 years) patients with 14,524 condylar type primary TKA procedures performed at our institution between 1/1/1988 and 12/31/2005 and examined factors effecting outcome. The mean age was 68.7 years and 55% were female. Over an average 9 years follow-up, a total of 865 revisions, including 252 tibia revisions were performed, corresponding to overall survival of 89% (Confidence intervals (CI): 88%, 90%) at 15 years. In comparison to metal modular designs, risk of tibial revision was significantly lower with all polyethylene tibias (HR 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.5). With any revision as the endpoint, there were no significant differences across the 18 designs examined. Similarly, there were no significant differences across the 18 designs when we considered revisions for aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis. Among patient characteristics, male gender, younger age, higher BMI were all significantly associated with higher risk of revisions (p<0.008).

In a more recent review from our institution of over 11, 600 primary TKA procedures, Houdek et al. again showed that all polyethylene tibial components had superior survivorship vs. metal backed designs, with a lower risk of revision for loosening, osteolysis or component fracture. Furthermore, results for all polyethylene designs were better for all BMI subgroups except for those <25 BMI where there was no difference. All polyethylene results were also better for all age groups except for those under age <55 where there again was no difference.

Finally, in a recently published meta-analysis of 28 articles containing data on 95,847 primary TKA procedures, all polyethylene tibial components were associated with a lower risk of revision and adverse outcomes. The available current data support the use of all polyethylene tibial designs in TKA in all patients regardless of age and BMI. In all patients, (not just older individuals) use of an all polyethylene tibial component is an attractive and more cost effective alternative, and is associated with the better survivorship and lower risk of revision than seen with modular metal backed tibial components.

Two big problems exist with the all polyethylene cemented tibial component; the polyethylene and the cement. The polyethylene is too weak and flexible to bear high tibial load, so it deforms and loosens. The interface stresses are too high when two flexible structures are poorly bonded and heavily loaded.

Modularity between the polyethylene tibial component and the metal-backed tray was introduced in the mid-80's for versatility and to facilitate screw fixation for cementless implants. These designs allow exchange of various polyethylene thicknesses, and aids the addition of stems and wedges. Other advantages include the reduction of inventory, and the potential for isolated tibial polyethylene exchanges as a simpler revision procedure. Several studies have documented the high failure rate of isolated polyethylene exchange procedures, because technical problems related to the original components are left uncorrected. However, revision for wear is the simplest revision ever!

Since the late 1980's the phenomena of polyethylene wear and osteolysis have been observed much more frequently when compared with earlier eras. The reasons for this increased prevalence of synovitis, progressive osteolysis, and severe polyethylene wear remain unclear. There is some association with the widespread use of both cementless and cemented modular tibial designs. Improved polyethylene attachment is the answer even if a screw, a wire, or a pin is needed. Do not abandon the modular tibia.

Simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasties (THAs) present unique and unwarranted dangers to the patient and surgeon alike. These include a significantly increased risk of blood transfusion (up to 50% in contemporary series even with the use of tranexamic acid), longer operative times, longer length of stays, and higher mortality rates in patients with minimal risk factors (age > 75 years, rheumatoid arthritis, higher ASA class, and/or male sex). This is even in light of the fact that the vast majority of literature has a substantial selection bias in which only the healthiest, youngest, non-obese, and most motivated patients are included.

Traditionally, simultaneous bilateral THAs were completed in the lateral decubitus position. This required the surgeon and surgical team to reposition the patient onto a fresh wound, as well as additional prepping and draping. To mitigate these additional limitations of simultaneous bilateral THAs, there has been a recent trend towards utilizing the direct anterior approach. However, this particular approach presents its own unique set of complications such as an increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture and early femoral failure, an increased risk of impaired wound healing (particularly in obese patients), potential injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with subsequent neurogenic pain, and traction-related neurologic injuries. When compounded with the risks of simultaneous bilateral THAs, the complication profile becomes prohibitive for an elective procedure with an otherwise very low morbidity.

It is estimated that approximately 3.1 – 7.7% of the general population suffers from primary osteoarthritis of the hip, with up to 42% of these cases being bilateral. The odds of undergoing a contralateral THA after index unilateral THA range from 16–85%. Up to 20% of these patients have the contralateral THA within 5 years. For this patient population, simultaneous bilateral THA may be an appealing option but it remains controversial. Proponents of bilateral simultaneous THA cite advantages such as a single anesthetic exposure, overall shorter length of hospital stay, quicker recovery, earlier return to function, less time off of work, and potential economic advantages. Only recently has there been more data emerging on patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral THA through the direct anterior approach (DAA). The DAA has the distinct advantage of supine positioning that facilitates easy exposure to both hips without the need to reposition the patient onto a fresh surgical incision while performing the second operation. Recent publications suggest that bilateral simultaneous DAA is a safe procedure and may have economic benefits as well.

At our institution between 2010 and 2016, a consecutive series of 105 patients (210 hips) undergoing simultaneous bilateral DAA THA and a matched group of 217 patients undergoing unilateral DAA THA by the same surgeon at a single institution were reviewed. The two groups were matched by gender, age, body mass index and date of surgery. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of early complications. There were 2 complications in the unilateral group that were intraoperative nondisplaced calcar fractures that were treated with a single cerclage cable and 50% weight bearing for four weeks. There were 6 in-hospital systemic complications in the unilateral group compared to 7 in the bilateral group (p = 0.129). In-hospital systemic complications were similar between the two groups and included urinary retention, cardiopulmonary abnormalities, alcohol withdrawal, and nausea / vomiting.

There were a total of 14 30-day follow-up hip-related complications in the unilateral group compared to 5 in the bilateral group (p = 0.06) These complications were similar between the two groups and included wound healing issues, tendinitis / bursitis, deep infection, nerve palsy, stem subsidence, and instability. Intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) was 360cc in the unilateral group compared to 555cc in the bilateral group (p < 0.001). The bilateral group had lower postoperative day one (POD1) hemoglobin (9.5 g/dl vs. 10.2 g/dl; p < 0.001). Four percent of unilateral patients required blood transfusion compared to 11% in the bilateral group. There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of distance ambulated on POD1 and length of stay (LOS). On average, the unilateral patients walked 235 feet on POD1 compared to 182 feet for the bilateral patients (p < 0.001). Length of stay was significantly longer in the bilateral group (1.95 days vs. 1.12 days; p < 0.001). All 322 patients involved in the study were discharged to home except for a single patient in the bilateral group who was discharged to a skilled nursing facility.

In conclusion, we found no difference in in-hospital or 30-day complication rates when comparing the simultaneous bilateral group to the unilateral group. The main difference when compared to unilateral surgery is increased blood loss yet this did not directly result in specific complications. Simultaneous bilateral DAA THA can be performed safely and without an unacceptably high perioperative complication rate.

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility will be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. At least one center reports that dual mobility outperforms 40mm femoral heads in revision arthroplasty. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation, revision of failed metal-on-metal resurfacing or total hips, unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are concerns of elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. Total hip surgeons no longer use conventional polyethylene, autologous blood donation, or a hemovac drain; now constrained components join these obsolete techniques! In 2018, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, is the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation.

Although the incidence of total hip dislocation has decreased, it still remains a major problem particularly if recurrent. The actual incidence is around 1–2% but it has been documented as the leading cause for hip revision in the United States. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, technical issues of leg length inequality, incorrect offset, and poor implant position should be addressed surgically and the abnormality corrected. In patients with recurrent hip dislocation, the articulation is preferably converted to a more stable articulation, with constrained sockets and dual mobility being the choices.

In my experience, dual mobility articulations remain an excellent option for recurrent hip dislocation and its use is increasing significantly. It provides improved hip stability and data have demonstrated good success with recurrent hip dislocation. However, with use of the modular variety of dual mobility which is needed for acetabular cup fixation with screw augmentation, dissimilar metals are placed in contact (titanium socket and cobalt chrome liner insert) which potentially can pose a fretting or corrosion problem in longer term outcomes. Constrained sockets of the tripolar configuration provide another option which is useful in those patients with severe abductor dysfunction or insufficiency. Constrained sockets can also be cemented into the existing shell in cases where there is a well-fixed cup and cup removal may lead to significant bone loss and a need for complex acetabular reconstruction. It is important to remember that there are two types of constrained sockets, tripolar and focal constraint. Results with the tripolar constrained socket have been significantly better than the focal constraint variety which adds a polyethylene rim piece to the liner. In a mid-term follow up (2–9 years) of 116 constrained tripolar sockets, recurrent dislocation was only 3.3%. In papers reporting on focal constrained sockets, recurrent dislocation was in the 9–29% range. There continues to be a role for constrained sockets and selection of implant type has made a difference in ultimate outcome.

I believe ceramic-on-polyethylene should be used in all patients undergoing THA. I believe the issues that one must look at include wear and osteolysis, bearing fracture and in 2018 corrosion/adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). If one looks at these aspects it is clear ceramic-on-polyethylene is the bearing of choice.

In the literature, there is a paucity of studies comparing metal-on-polyethylene with ceramic-on-polyethylene total hips. The data suggests no real difference in survivorship but less wear. However, most studies are not comparative studies and are underpowered to see these differences. The only data that is powered to see these differences is registry data. In first decade survivorship of metal-on- polyethylene is similar to ceramic-on-polyethylene. However, in the second decade the advantage is clearly with ceramic-on-polyethylene.

However, in 2018, the major issue is corrosion and subsequent ALTR. While corrosion at the femoral head and stem taper has been seen for many years, in 2012 an article by Cooper et al. highlighted that this corrosion may lead to ALTR. They reported on 10 cases with variable presentation and no specific factor was found in their study or any study to date that will lead to corrosion and ALTR. More recently, a study from our center highlighted that dislocation may be the first presentation of ALTR. In this study, 10 cases of dislocation presented at an mean of 8 months with their first dislocation. Components were well positioned and it was concluded that the ALTR was the cause for the dislocation. Today any patient with new onset pain, stiffness or instability with a metal-on-polyethylene THA should be worked up for ALTR.

The question of why this is happening now is important to answer. Numerous theories have been proposed, most likely it is a combination of these factors: change in trunnion dimension/surface, increasing head size, trunnion preparation and impaction force. It also appears to be stem dependent. In a study by McGrory et al. they found a 1% prevalence of ALTR in just over 1300 cases with one particular femoral stem.

At present, however, we cannot predict at all which patient will develop ALTR and therefore we have gone to ceramic-on-polyethylene in all our THAs.

In summary, the ideal bearing has low wear, low corrosion potential, generalizable, easy to revise, versatile, biocompatible and safe. In 2018, ceramic-on-polyethylene as a bearing fulfills all these criteria and should be the bearing of choice in total hip replacement.

Ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) bearings have traditionally been reserved for younger patients that were at high risk of polyethylene wear requiring revision. With the 1999 advent of highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLP), wear with XLP has not been a cause for revision. Simulator studies have not shown a difference in wear comparing COP to metal-on-polyethylene (MOP). Therefore, and considering the additional cost of COP, we have until recently not needed COP. However, a 2012 report of 10 cases that developed an adverse reaction to metal debris generated by head neck corrosion has resulted in COP becoming the most common bearing surface as reported by the American Joint Replacement Registry. This reactionary change has occurred despite the fact that we do not understand the cause, do not know the frequency, if it is more common in some implants than others, and we do not know the additional cost or markup of ceramic heads. One study reported a 3.2% revision prevalence caused by mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC) at the head neck junction of a single manufacturer's implant. Other studies have estimated the frequency to be less than 5%. COST IS THE CONCERN in a value based healthcare environment. Models for and against the wholesale use of COP have been proposed and are based on variables that are unknown, including estimated frequency of the problem and the incrementally higher cost of a ceramic head. I use COP in younger patients that I believe will use their hip for more than 15 years. This is based on my personal experience. I have prospectively followed a series of MOP patients for 5 years and not seen cobalt elevations. I have placed new metal femoral heads on corroded femoral tapers without subsequent failure. I have evaluated the taper junctions of postmortem retrievals and found them virtually free of corrosion. A query of our institutional database for MOP primary hips identified 3012 cases between 2006–2017. Eighty revisions (2.7%) were identified. 2 of the 80 were for MACC representing 2.5% of revisions done on our own patients and 0.07% of our MOP cases. Further, evaluating our most recent all cause 350 revisions (7/2015–10/2017) there were 3 revisions for MACC (0.9%). Each one of us needs to EVALUATE OUR OWN PRACTICE AND MAKE AN EDUCATED, VALUE BASED DECISION whether or not to use COP in all patients.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is effective, reproducible, and durable in the treatment of hip joint arthritis. While improvements in polyethylene materials have significantly reduced wear rates and osteolysis, aseptic loosening of implants remains one of the leading causes of revision THA. Additionally, fears of dislocation and instability have driven the increase in the utilization of larger diameter femoral heads in primary THA which can lead to increased wear when coupled with a polyethylene articulation. Finally, the increasing number of younger and active patients undergoing THA raises questions with regards to the ability of modern conventional bearings to provide durability and longevity beyond second and third decades following joint implantation.

Ceramic-on-ceramic articulations are ideally suited for today's young and high demand patients undergoing primary THA. It has the lowest in-vitro wear properties of any bearing couple and the wear characteristics are further improved by its wettability and lubrication particularly when larger heads are utilised. Additionally, improvements in material properties and prosthesis design have significantly decreased fracture rates and increased the reliability of these implants. Furthermore, reported outcomes and longevity of modern ceramic-on-ceramic THAs in younger patients have all shown excellent survivorship despite patients achieving and maintaining a very high level of activity and function. In short, it is the bearing couple most in tune with current market demands and utilization trends.

While registry data and meta-analyses of published literature have failed to show the superiority of ceramic-on-ceramic articulations compared to conventional bearings at 10 years, there is evidence that even highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXPE) is not immune to wear. Selvarajah et al. reported steady, in-vivo wear rates of HXPE exceeding 0.1mm/year threshold in young THA patients with 36mm ceramic ball heads. Additionally, small osteolytic lesions have been observed in hips with HXPE bearings at 12–14 years follow up. Finally, analysis of all controlled randomised studies have shown less osteolysis of ceramic-on-ceramic hips compared to polyethylene articulations. The significance of these lesions are unclear but the question remains: Can HXPE as a bearing be able to provide over 30 years of service needed to outlast patients younger than 60 years?

Concerns with cost, squeaking, and fractures do not make ceramic-on-ceramic bearings suitable for all patients undergoing primary THA. However, in young, healthy and active patients, a modern ceramic- on-ceramic articulation is most likely to provide the lowest wear rates, lowest risk of osteolysis, and greatest chance for life-long durability.

At the present time, there is no bearing in total hip arthroplasty that a surgeon can present to a younger and/or more active patient as being the bearing that will necessarily last them a lifetime. This is the driver to offering alternative bearings (crosslinked polyethylene with either a CoCr or ceramic head, resurfacings, and ceramic-on-ceramic) to patients. Each of these bearings has pros and cons, and none has emerged as the clear victor in the ongoing debate.

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings have been available for decades. Earlier generation CoC bearings did encounter problems with rare fractures, however, with a greater understanding and improvement in the material, the fracture incidence has been significantly reduced. However, what has emerged in the past few years is an increasing reporting of significant squeaking. The incidence of squeaking, reported in the literature in various series, has varied from less than 1% to over 20%, depending on the definition used.

The primary reasons that ceramic-on-ceramic is not truly the articulation of choice for younger patients are: 1) There is absolutely no evidence that this bearing has a lower revision rate. Data from the Australian joint registry actually shows that at 15 years it has a significantly increased rate of revision (7.2%) compared with using a highly crosslinked liner with either a ceramic (5.1%) or a CoCr (6.3%) head; 2) This bearing is by far the most costly bearing on the market. In 2017 with significant constraints on health care systems across the globe, this is a significant concern; 3) This bearing has unique complications including squeaking and both liner and head fracturing.

While ceramic-on-ceramic can be considered a viable alternative bearing in total hip arthroplasty, it can be in no way considered the articulation of longevity for the younger patient.

Ceramic bearings are currently the most widely used alternative to metal-on-polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A workgroup at International Consensus Meeting (ICM) analyzed the potential link between the type of bearing surface and the subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and found a higher incidence of PJI when using a metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surface. A potential reason is that the failure of a MoM bearing surface can result in adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), which might provide a favorable environment for bacterial proliferation.

In the last few years, several observational studies including national registries, showed that metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearing surfaces are associated with a higher rate of infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to ceramic bearings, in particular with the use of ceramic-on-ceramic bearing (CoC) surfaces.

After adjusting for selection bias and various confounding factors, patients treated with ceramic bearings experienced reduced risk of infection and MoP bearing surface is an independent risk factor correlating with higher incidence of PJI. The meta-analysis by Lee et al. comparing MoM with CoC cementless THA confirmed that the MoM is associated with a significantly higher revision rate than CoC group for any reason as well as for PJI. Furthermore, initial in-vitro studies have shown lower bacterial biofilm formation on ceramic bearing surfaces. Summarizing the current literature, ceramic bearings are associated with a lower risk of infection following THA.

There is limited evidence in the literature suggesting that ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) THA is associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than other bearing combinations especially metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) and metal-on-metal (MoM). Pitto and Sedel reported hazard ratios of 1.3 – 2.1 for other bearing surfaces vs. CoC. Of interest, the PJI rate was not significantly lower in the first 6 months, when most infections occur, but only became significant in the long term. While factors such as patient age, fixation, mode, O.R. type, use of body exhaust suits, and surgeon volume were considered in the multivariate analysis, BMI, medical comorbidities, and ASA class were not. This is a major weakness that casts doubt on the conclusion, since those three factors are MAJOR risk factors for PJI AND all three factors are more likely to be unevenly distributed, much more likely present in groups other than CoC. The data was also limited by the fact that it was drawn from a retrospective review of National Registry data, The New Zealand Joint Registry. While similar findings have recently been reported from the Australian Joint Registry, the danger in attributing differences in outcomes to implants alone is possibly the single greatest danger in interpreting registry results. While device design can impact implant survival, other factors such as surgical technique, surgeon, hospital, and especially patient factors have a far greater likelihood of explaining differences in observed results. A recent report from the same New Zealand joint registry reported that obesity, ASA class, surgical approach, and trainee operations all were associated with higher PJI and all would be more likely in non-CoC THAs. Accuracy of diagnosis is also a major concern. Revision for trunnionosis is more common in non-CoC THA and is frequently misdiagnosed as PJI.

Numerous non-registry studies and reviews have compared PJI in CoC vs. other bearing and none have concluded than the incidence of PJI differed significantly.

Postoperative dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant concern with a reported incidence of 1% to 10%. The risk of dislocation is multifactorial and includes both surgeon-related (i.e. implant position, component size, surgical approach) and patient-related factors (i.e. gender, age, preoperative diagnosis, neurologic disorders). While the majority of prior investigations have focused on the importance of acetabular component positioning, recent studies have shown that approximately 60% of “dislocators” following primary THA have an acceptably aligned acetabular component. Therefore, the importance of the relationship between the spine and pelvis, and its impact on functional component position has gained increased attention.

Kanawade and Dorr et al. have shown patients can be categorised into having a stiff, normal, or hypermobile pelvis based on their change in pelvic tilt when moving from the standing to seated position. The degree of change in functional position of both the acetabular and femoral components is impacted by the degree of pelvic motion each patient possesses. In the “normal” pelvis, as a patient moves from the standing to seated position the pelvis typically tilts posteriorly, thus increasing the functional anteversion of the acetabular component. However, patients with lumbar degeneration or spine pathology often have a decrease in posterior pelvic tilt in the seated position, thus potentially increasing their risk of dislocation. Bedard et al. noted an 8.3% dislocation risk in patients with a spinopelvic fusion after THA vs. 2.9% in those without.

There is the potential that preoperative, dynamic imaging can be used to predict the ideal component position for each individual patient undergoing THA. However, this assumes that a patient's preoperative pelvic motion will be the same following implantation of a total hip prosthesis, and that a patient's pelvic motion will remain consistent over time postoperatively. A recent study has shown that the impact of THA on pelvic motion can be highly variable, thus potentially limiting the utility of preoperative dynamic imaging in predicting a patient's ideal component position. Future investigations must focus on preoperative factors that can be used to predict postoperative pelvic motion and how pelvic motion changes over time following implantation of a total hip arthroplasty.

There are numerous factors that influence total hip arthroplasty (THA) stability including surgical approach, soft-tissue tensioning, impingement, abductor status, and component positioning. A long-held tenet regarding acetabular component positioning is that cup inclination and anteversion of 40 ± 10 degrees and 15 ± 10 degrees, respectively, represents a “safe zone” as to minimise dislocation after primary THA. However, several studies have recently challenged that notion for individual patients. A study completed by Abdel et al. identified a cohort of 9784 primary THAs performed at a single institution with 206 THAs (2%) that subsequently dislocated. The authors determined that 58% of the dislocated THAs had their acetabular component within the safe zone for both acetabular inclination and anteversion. When looked at separately, 84% had their inclination within the safe zone (mean value of 44 ± 8 degrees), and 69% had their anteversion within the safe zone (mean value of 15 ± 9 degrees). As such, surgeons should take into account that cup positioning alone does not determine the risk of instability following THA, as there are a multitude of other factors that can contribute to dislocation. Hip stability is multifactorial and likely patient-specific, and must take into account bony and muscular anatomy, static and dynamic soft tissue balance and intraoperative tensioning, and the functional demand and rehabilitative efforts of the patient.

Acetabular implant position is important for the stability, function, and long-term wear properties of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Prior studies of acetabular implant positioning have demonstrated a high percentage of outliers, even in experienced hip surgeons, when conventional instruments are used.

Computer navigation is an attractive tool for use in (THA, as it has been shown to improve the precision of acetabular component placement and reduce the incidence of outliers. However, computer navigation with imageless, large-console systems is costly and often interrupts the surgeon's workflow, and thus, has not been widely adopted.

Another method to improve acetabular component positioning during THA is the use of fluoroscopy with the direct anterior approach. Studies have demonstrated that the supine position of the patient during surgery facilitates the use of fluoroscopic guidance, thus improving acetabular component position.

A handheld, accelerometer based navigation unit for use in total hip replacement has recently become available to assist the surgeon in positioning the acetabular component during anterior approach THA, potentially reducing the need for intraoperative fluoroscopic studies. We sought to compare the radiographic results of direct anterior THA performed with conventional instrumentation vs. handheld navigation to determine the accuracy of the navigation unit, and to see whether or not there was a reduction in the fluoroscopic time used during surgery. Furthermore, we timed the use of the navigation unit to see whether or not it required a substantial addition to surgical time.

Our results demonstrate that a handheld navigation unit used during anterior approach THA had no difference with regard to acetabular cup positioning when compared to fluoroscopically assisted THA, but led to a reduction in the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy time.

Inaccurate component placement during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can have significant and costly consequences. Malpositioning of the acetabular cup components can lead to dislocation and revision surgery, while postoperative discrepancies in leg length can lead to biomechanical imbalances, causing chronic low back pain. Current methods for monitoring these parameters intraoperatively rely on manual methods such as tissue tensioning or on the surgeon's experience, both of which are subject to inaccuracies. Computer-assisted navigation, while currently used in only a small percentage of THA procedures, is an emerging technology that has the potential to improve the accuracy with which surgeons place components during THA by providing real-time, intraoperative data. One innovative navigation system – Intellijoint HIP^® (Intellijoint Surgical, Waterloo, ON) – has demonstrated its accuracy, time-neutrality, safety and effectiveness in clinical studies and has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce re-admissions and revisions during both primary and revision THA.

The ability to assist with placement of the cup component at a preoperative target is a hallmark of navigation systems. In studies examining the proportion of cups placed within Lewinnek's safe zone, significantly more cups were placed within this zone with the Intellijoint system than when using traditional methods (anteversion: 58% vs. 37%, p=0.005; inclination: 87% vs. 67%, p=0.002). Similarly, surgeons were better able to place the cup at a functional orientation of 40 degrees inclination/20 degrees anteversion, with a significantly higher proportion of cups placed within 10 degrees of this target while using the Intellijoint system (70%) than during conventional THA (53%, p=0.02).

In comparisons with postoperative imaging, the Intellijoint system has demonstrated excellent accuracy. In a recent study, intraoperative measurements of anteversion and inclination were within 3.3 ± 3.1 degrees and 1.1 ± 0.9 degrees, respectively, of postoperative 3D EOS imaging. Results for leg length discrepancy are similarly accurate: across several studies, the mean difference between navigation and radiographic measurements ranged from 0.3 to 4.3mm. Evidence indicates that the 90-day rates of dislocation and revision surgery following primary THA with the Intellijoint system were substantially lower than rates associated with traditional methods. These results hold true following navigation-assisted revision surgery as well. At 90 days, 1 year and 2 years post-procedure, no dislocations were reported.

Beyond dislocation, the overall rate of adverse events in cases using Intellijoint has been reported as remarkably low. No device-related fractures have been reported, nor have any instances of postoperative pain at the sites of the surgical pins supporting the camera and/or tracker components. Finally, there is no significant increase in surgical time associated with the use of this device, with a large study comparing navigated THA with traditional THA showing a 2.9-minute increase in procedural time (p=0.60), 1.0 minute of which occurs prior to primary incision (unpublished data).

Computer-assisted navigation – and the Intellijoint HIP system specifically – has demonstrated the ability to improve the accuracy with which surgeons implant components during THA without adversely affecting operating room efficiency or patient safety. This technology has the potential to dramatically improve patient-related outcomes in both the short- and long-term and represents the benefits associated with advanced technologies in the operating room.

Two critical steps in achieving optimal results and minimizing complications (dislocation, lengthening, and intraoperative fracture) are careful preoperative planning and more recently, the option of intraoperative imaging in order to optimise accurate and reproducible total hip replacement. The important issues to ascertain are relative limb length, offset and center of rotation. It is important to start the case knowing the patient's perception of their limb length. Patient perception is equally important, if not more important, than the radiographic assessment. On the acetabular side, the teardrop should be identified and the amount of reaming necessary to place the inferior margin of the acetabular component adjacent to the tear drop should be noted. Superiorly the amount of exposed metal that is expected to be seen during surgery should be measured in millimeters. Once the key issues of limb length, offset, center of rotation, and acetabular component position relative to the native acetabulum have been confirmed along with the expected sizing of the acetabular and femoral components, it is critical that the operative plan is reproduced at the time of surgery and this can best be consistently performed with the use of intraoperative imaging. Advances in digital imaging now make efficient, cost-effective assessment of hip replacement possible. Embedded software allows accurate confirmation of the preoperative plan intraoperatively when correction of potential errors is easily possible. Such technology is now mature after years of clinical use and studies have confirmed its success in avoiding outliers and achieving optimal results.

A pilot study at Washington University demonstrated that intraoperative imaging was able to eliminate outliers for acetabular inclination and anteversion. In addition, the ability to achieve accurate reproduction of femoral offset and limb length within 5mm was three times better with intraoperative imaging (P < 0.001).

Complete or nearly complete disruption of the attachment of the gluteus is seen in 10–20% of cases at the time of THA. Special attention is needed to identify the lesion at the time of surgery because the avulsion often is visible only after a thickened hypertrophic trochanteric bursa is removed. From 1/1/09 to 12/31/13, 525 primary hip replacements were performed by a single surgeon. After all total hip components were implanted, the greater trochanteric bursa was removed, and the gluteus medius and minimus attachments to the greater trochanter were visualised and palpated. Ninety-five hips (95 patients) were found to have damage to the muscle attachments to bone. Fifty-four hips had mild damage consisting of splits in the tendon, but no frank avulsion of abductor tendon from their bone attachments. None of these cases had severe atrophy of the abductor muscles, but all had partial fatty infiltration. All hips with this mild lesion had repair of the tendons with #5 Ticron sutures to repair the tendon bundles together, and drill holes through bone to anchor the repair to the greater trochanter. Forty-one hips had severe damage with complete or nearly complete avulsion of the gluteus medius and minimus muscles from their attachments to the greater trochanter. Thirty-five of these hips had partial fatty infiltration of the abductor muscles, but all responded to electrical stimulation. The surface of the greater trochanter was denuded of soft tissue with a rongeur, the muscles were repaired with five-seven #5 Ticron mattress sutures passed through drill holes in the greater trochanter, and a gluteus maximus flap was transferred to the posterior third of the greater trochanter and sutured under the vastus lateralis. Six hips had complete detachment of the gluteus medius and minimus muscles, severe atrophy of the muscles, and poor response of the muscles to electrical stimulation. The gluteus medius and minimus muscles were sutured to the greater trochanter, and gluteus maximus flap was transferred as in the group with functioning gluteus medius and minimus muscles. Postoperatively, patients were instructed to protect the hip for 8 weeks, then abductor exercises were started.

The normal hips all had negative Trendelenburg tests at 2 and 5 years postoperative with mild lateral hip pain reported by 11 patients at 2 years, and 12 patients at 5 years. In the group of 54 with mild abductor tendon damage that were treated with simple repair, positive Trendelenburg test was found in 5 hips at 2 years and in 8 hips at 5 years. Lateral hip pain was reported in 7 hips at 2 years, and in 22 at 5 years. In the group of 35 hips with severe avulsion but good muscle tissue, who underwent repair with gluteus maximus flap transfer, all had good abduction against gravity and negative Trendelenburg tests at 2 and 5 years postoperative, and none had lateral hip pain. Of the 6 hips with complete avulsion and poor muscle who underwent abductor muscle repair and gluteus maximus flap transfer, all had weak abduction against gravity, mildly positive Trendelenburg sign, and mild lateral hip pain at 2 and 5 years postoperative. Abductor avulsion is uncommon but not rare, and is detected during THA only by direct examination of the tendon and removal of the trochanteric bursa. Simple repair of mild abductor tendon damage did not prevent progressive abductor weakness in some hips; and the increase in number of patients with lateral hip pain from 2 to 5 years suggests progressive deterioration. Augmentation of the repair with a gluteus maximus flap appears to provide a stable reconstruction of the abductor muscles, and seemed to restore abductor function in the hips with functioning muscles.

The challenges faced by hip surgeons have changed over the last decade. Historically, fixation, polyethylene wear, osteolysis, loosening and failure to osseointegrate dominated the discussions at hip surgery meetings. With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene, wear and osteolysis are currently not significant issues. Improved surgical technique has resulted in a high rate of osseointegration and once fixed, loosening of cementless components is rare.

In this session, we will focus on issues that orthopaedic surgeons performing hip surgery routinely face including bearing couples in the young active patient, implant choices in the dysplastic hip and osteoporotic femur, evaluation and management of the unstable hip and differential diagnosis of the painful THR.

According to Webster's Dictionary, efficiency is defined as the capacity to produce desired results with a minimal expenditure of energy, money, time, and materials. For a surgeon performing an operative procedure this would mean “skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort.” (www.webster-dictionary.org) The essential ingredient to becoming efficient is to promote a culture of efficiency. There are 10 elements: 1) proactive surgeon perspective; 2) effective utilization of preoperative holding area; 3) preoperative planning / templating; 4) development of preference cards; 5) operating room set-up protocols; 6) operating room team concept; 7) streamlined instrument sets; 8) consistent operative workflow; 9) standardised closure / dressings; and 10) prompt and meticulous room turnover. Efficient performance of an operative procedure requires skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort. Perioperative efficiencies are optimised by development of “swing,” “flip,” or “double occupancy” criteria, understanding of timing of when to initiate the anesthetic block for the next case, skin closure routine by physician assistant/nurse practitioner/private scrub, and marking the operative site of your first two patients upon arrival to the hospital or surgery center. Utilise a pro-active approach to prepare case carts the day before surgery. The operating room team turns over their own rooms, with a “clean as you go” mentality. Develop a formalised communication process for patient flow issues, such as real-time push-to-talk group calling phones. Determine in advance the number of instrument sets required for the day's caseload to mitigate flash sterilization and decrease room turnover time. The goal of the surgeon is to be out of the operating room for 5 minutes in between cases before the next incision, utilizing that time to enter orders, communicate with the family, dictate, and mark the operative site of the patient who will follow the one in the case about to start. Implant selection can help if consistent. Everyone must know the instrument trays including surgeon, scrubs, and nurses. Minimise both the number of trays and the redundancy of instrumentation. Templating should be done in advance of the day of surgery. Keep your surgery consistent and always deliver your best product. The workflow for inpatient and outpatient surgeries should be the same: same implant, same approach, and same closure.

The culture of efficiency requires buy-in by all involved in the operative procedure. Every one entering the operating theatre should have proper body coverage – no hair visible, no nose visible. There should be a strict limit to needless activity: minimum opening of doors, no changing of personnel during an operation, and use of intercom/telephone to request equipment. As the surgeon and the team begin to embrace efficiency, surgical times will decrease. Multiple studies have demonstrated that increased surgical time is associated with a higher incidence of infection. This is secondary to time-dependent contamination of the surgical wound and field.

The take home message is to develop and embrace efficiency. Operating room efficiency is the product of multiple factors including preoperative preparation, skilled anesthesia team, motivated operating room staff, choreographed surgery, and well-designed instrumentation. The surgeon is the captain of the ship and the staff follows his or her lead. Your operating room days will flow smoothly. Your operations will proceed with minimal stress. You will spend less time drinking coffee between cases and have more free time at the end of the day. However, most importantly, you will deliver a quality product to your patient.

Metal-on-metal bearings (MoM), in both a total hip and resurfacing application, saw an increase in global utilization in the last decade. This peaked in 2008 in the US, with approximately 35% of bearings being hard-on-hard (metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic). Beginning in 2008, reports in the orthopaedic literature began to surface regrading local soft tissue reactions and hypersensitivity to metal-on-metal bearings. A major implant manufacturer recalled a resurfacing device in 2010 after national joint registries demonstrated higher than expected revision rates.

Patients with painful metal-on-metal bearings presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon are a difficult diagnostic challenge. The surgeon must go back to basic principles, perform a complete history and physical exam, obtain serial radiographs and basic bloodwork (ESR, CRP) to rule out common causes of pain and determine if the pain is, or is not, related to the bearing.

The Asymptomatic MoM Arthroplasty: Patients will present for either routine followup, or because of concerns regarding their bearing. It is important to emphasise that at this point the vast majority of patients with a MoM bearing are indeed asymptomatic and their bearings are performing well. The surgeon must take into account: a) which specific implant are they dealing with and what is its track record; b) what is the cup position; c) when to perform metal ion testing; d) when to perform further soft tissue imaging (MARS MRI, Ultrasound); e) when to discuss possible surgery. A simple algorithm for both painless and painful MoM Arthroplasties has been developed and will be presented.

As the number of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty rises, the number of patients who require surgery for a failed total hip arthroplasty is also increasing. It is estimated that 183,000 total hip replacements were performed in the United States in the year 2000 and that 31,000 of these (17%) were revision procedures. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in preoperative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. A classification of femoral deficiency has been developed and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented.

An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliably achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs. The surgical technique is straightforward and we continue to use this type of device in the majority of our revision total hip arthroplasties. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Based on our results, the following reconstructive algorithm is recommended for femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Type I: In a Type I femur, there is minimal loss of cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Cemented or cementless fixation can be utilised. If cemented fixation is selected, great care must be taken in removing the neo-cortex often encountered to allow for appropriate cement intrusion into the remaining cancellous bone.

Type II: In a Type II femur, there is extensive loss of the metaphyseal cancellous bone and thus, fixation with cement is unreliable. In this cohort of patients, successful fixation was achieved using a diaphyseal fitting, extensively porous coated implant. However, as the metaphysis is supportive, a cementless implant that achieves primary fixation in the metaphysis can be utilised.

Type IIIA: In a Type IIIA femur, the metaphysis is non-supportive and an extensively coated stem of adequate length is utilised to ensure that more than 4cm of scratch fit is obtained in the diaphysis.

Type IIIB: Based on the poor results obtained with a cylindrical, extensively porous coated implant (with 4 of 8 reconstructions failing), our present preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability.

Type IV: The isthmus is completely non-supportive and the femoral canal is widened. Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients.

There has been an evolution in revision hip arthroplasty towards cementless reconstruction. Whilst cemented arthroplasty works well in the primary setting, the difficulty with achieving cement fixation in femoral revisions has led to a move towards removal of cement, where it was present, and the use of ingrowth components. These have included proximally loading or, more commonly, distally fixed stems. We have been through various iterations of these, notably with extensively porous coated cobalt chrome stems and recently with taper-fluted titanium stems. As a result of this, cemented stems have become much less popular in the revision setting.

Allied to concerns about fixation and longevity of cemented fixation revision, there were also worries in relation to bone cement implantation syndrome when large cement loads were pressurised into the femoral canal at the time of stem cementation. This was particularly the case with longer stems. Technical measures are available to reduce that risk but the fear is nevertheless there.

In spite of this direction of travel and these concerns, there is, however, still a role for cemented stems in revision hip arthroplasty. This role is indeed expanding.

First and foremost, the use of cement allows for local antibiotic delivery using a variety of drugs both instilled in the cement at the time of manufacture or added by the surgeon when the cement is mixed. This has advantages when dealing with periprosthetic infection. Thus, cement can be used both as interval spacers but also for definitive fixation when dealing with periprosthetic hip infection. The reconstitution of bone stock is always attractive, particularly in younger patients or those with stove pipe canals. This is achieved well using impaction grafting with cement and is another extremely good use of cement.

In the very elderly or those in whom proximal femoral resection is needed at the time of revision surgery, distal fixation with cement provides a good solution for immediate weight bearing and does not have the high a risk of fracture seen with large cementless stems.

Cement is also useful in cases of proximal femoral deformity or where cement has been used in a primary arthroplasty previously. We have learnt that if the cement is well-fixed then the bond of cement-to-cement is excellent and therefore retention of the cement mantle and recementation into that previous mantle is a great advantage. This avoids the risks of cement removal and allows for much easier fixation. Stems have been designed specifically to allow this cement-in-cement technique. It can be used most readily with polished tapered stems - tap out a stem, gain access at the time of revision surgery and reinsert it. It is, however, now increasingly used when any cemented stems are removed provided that the cement mantle is well fixed. The existing mantle is either wide enough to accommodate the cement-in-cement revision or can be expanded using manual instruments or ultrasonic tools. The cement interface is then dried and a new stem cemented in place.

Whilst the direction of travel in revision hip arthroplasty has been towards cementless fixation, particularly with tapered distally fixed designs, the reality is that there is still a role for cement for its properties of immediate fixation, reduced fracture risk, local antibiotic delivery, impaction grafting and cement-in-cement revision.

Tapered fluted grit-blasted modular stems have now become established as a successful method of femoral revision. The success of these stems is predicated on obtaining axial stability by milling the femur to a cone and then inserting the tapered prosthesis into that cone. Torsional stability is gained by flutes that cut into the diaphysis. By having modular proximal segments of different lengths, the leg length, offset, and anteversion can be adjusted after the distal stem is fixed. This maximises the chance for the stem to be driven into the canal to whatever level provides maximum stem stability.

Modular fluted tapered stems have the potential benefits of being made of titanium and hence being both bone friendly and also having a modulus of elasticity closer to that of bone. They have a well-established high rate of fixation. Drawbacks include the risk of fracture of modular junctions and tapers, and difficulty of extraction.

The indications for the use of these implants vary among surgeons, but the implants are suitable for use in a wide variety of bone loss categories. Non-modular fluted tapered stems also can gain excellent fixation, but are less versatile and in most practices are used for selected simpler revisions.

Results from a number of institutions in North America and Europe demonstrate high rates of implant fixation. In a recently published paper from Mayo Clinic, the 10-year survivorship, free of femoral aseptic loosening revision, of a modular fluted tapered stem was 98% and the stem performed well across a wide range of bone deficiencies.

The technique of implantation will be described in a video during the presentation

Periacetabular osteolysis in association with well-fixed cementless components was first recognised as a serious clinical problem in the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, revision surgery for pelvic osteolysis secondary to polyethylene wear was the most common revision hip procedure performed. As a result, new bearing surfaces were introduced in hopes of reducing wear volume and thus reducing pelvic osteolysis. These included highly crosslinked polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal bearing surfaces.

Metal-on-metal has for the most part been eliminated in conventional hip replacement because of the concerns centered around adverse local tissue reactions. Both highly crosslinked polyethylene and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have been successful in limiting wear and all but eliminating clinically significant osteolysis. Multiple reports on highly crosslinked polyethylene have documented wear rates below the lysis threshold. No reports of revision for wear have been reported despite twenty years of in-vivo use. Of import to the surgeons, all manufacturers commonly used in North America have performed well. In addition, highly crosslinked polyethylene has been relatively insensitive to head size allowing the use of 36mm femoral heads routinely. Similar reports are noted with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. However, highly crosslinked has dominated the North American market because it is a relatively forgiving bearing surface and comes at a lower cost. Currently, there is a trend towards the use of ceramic femoral heads – not because of wear concerns, but concerns related to taper corrosion and large cobalt-chrome femoral heads.

Hemispheric, porous-ingrowth revision acetabular components (generally with multiple screw fixation) have demonstrated versatility and durability over 25 years. Jumbo cups (minimum diameter of 62mm in women, 66mm in men, or 10mm larger than the normal contralateral acetabulum) are utilised in the majority of revisions with acetabular bone loss, with or without bone grafting, or other augmentation. The popularity of jumbo cups is due to their relative ease of use and the reliability of the result. With up to 20-year follow-up, and failure defined as cup revision for aseptic loosening or radiographic evidence of loosening, implant survival was 97.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.6% to 99.3%) at ten years and 82.8% (95% CI, 59% to 97.6%) at fifteen years. Twenty-year survivorship with 88% free from aseptic loosening of the metal acetabular component has been reported. Instability is decreased in association with larger diameter bearings. Revisions associated with wear of non-crosslinked polyethylene increased in the second decade. Crosslinked polyethylene and ultra-porous materials will likely increase both the durability and the utility of jumbo cups.

Uncemented acetabular component fixation remains the gold standard for managing various defects in the revision hip setting. Multiple series have demonstrated over 90% ten-year survivorship of these constructs. Modern “enhanced” metals such as trabecular tantalum and titanium continue to perform well and are growing in popularity. So called “jumbo” cups, diameters >=62mm in females and >=66mm in males have demonstrated excellent survivorship. Good bony support with viable bone and stable initial fixation is necessary for long-term success. It is unknown how much remaining bone is necessary for reliable ingrowth with modern enhanced metals. The location of the remaining bone is probably more important than the absolute amount remaining. Occasionally, the uncemented cup must be augmented with metal augments or even a so-called “cup cage” construct. Even in these situations, the uncemented cup remains the workhorse of revision THA due to its ingrowth potential and excellent track record. Augments are commercially available in various shapes and sizes to assist in the management of cavitary, segmental and combined defects while restoring the desired cup position. Trials are available to ensure good approximation of the augment to remaining bone. The constructs are typically “unitised” to the cup via bone cement. Available data show excellent survivorship of augmented constructs for these challenging reconstructions.

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a preoperative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means.

We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3 – 9 years) there were four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%.

Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions.

Pelvic discontinuity is defined as a separation of the ilium superiorly from the ischiopubic segment inferiorly. In 2018, the main management options include the following: 1) hemispheric acetabular component with posterior column plating, 2) cup-cage construct, 3) pelvic distraction, and 4) custom triflange construct. A hemispheric acetabular component with posterior column plating is a good option for acute pelvic discontinuities. However, healing potential is dependent on host's biology and characteristic of the discontinuity. The plate should include 3 screws above and 3 screws below the discontinuity with compression in between. In addition, the hemispherical acetabular component should have at least 50% host bone contact with 3–4 screws superior and 2–3 screws inferior to the discontinuity. On the other hand, a cup-cage construct can be used in any pelvic discontinuity. This includes a highly porous acetabular component placed on remaining host bone. Occasionally, highly porous metal augments are used to fill the remaining bone defects. A supplemental cage is placed over the acetabular component, spanning the discontinuity from the ilium to the ischium. A polyethylene liner is then cemented into place with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. Rarely, pelvic distraction may be needed. With this technique, pelvic stability is obtained via distraction of the discontinuity by elastic recoil of the pelvis and by fixing the superior hemipelvis and inferior hemipelvis to a highly porous metal cup or augment with screws, thereby unitizing the superior and inferior aspects of the pelvis. In essence, the cup acts as a segmental replacement of the acetabulum, with healing occurring to the cup or augment, resulting in a unitised hemipelvis. Frequently, the discontinuity itself does not achieve bony healing. Finally, custom triflange constructs are being utilised with increasing frequency. Triflange cups are custom-designed, porous and/or hydroxyapatite coated, titanium acetabular components with iliac, ischial, and pubic flanges. Rigid fixation promotes healing of the discontinuity and biologic fixation of the implant. It requires a CT scan, dedicated preoperative design, and fabrication costs.

The Superior Hip Approach allows for safe reconstruction of the hip while maximizing preservation of the surrounding soft tissues. The procedure involves an incision in the hip joint capsule posterior to the gluteus medius and minimus and anterior to the short external rotators. The technique involves preparation of the femur in-situ through the superior femoral neck and then excision of the femoral head, which avoids the attendant soft tissue dissection or injury associated with dislocation of the native hip. After component implantation, the capsule is closed anatomically.

Two separate studies have demonstrated that over a 90-day period, patients whose hips were replaced using this technique consumed the least amount of cost of any patients treated by hip arthroplasty in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. One study assessed all hips replaced in patients insured by Medicare over a four-year period. In this study, patients treated by the Superior Hip Approach were less costly by an average of more than $7,000 over 90 days. A second study assessed all hips replaced in patients insured by a large private insurer. This study showed again that patients treated by the Superior Hip Approach were the lowest cost patients. Notable, the cost on average was $23,500 less per procedure compared to the most well-known medical care organization in the state or roughly half the cost. Lower cost was due to both lower inpatient cost and reduced utilization of post-acute care resources. Since reduced resource utilization is a direct measure of accelerated recovery, these economic data combine with clinical outcomes and anatomical studies that document that the Superior Hip Approach is a reliable technique for achieving optimal results following THA.

Anterior surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have increased popularity due to expected faster recovery and less pain. However, the direct anterior approach (Heuter approach which has been popularised by Matta) has been associated with a higher rate of early revisions than other approaches due to femoral component loosening and fractures. It is also noted to have a long learning curve and other unique complications like anterior femoral cutaneous and femoral nerve injuries. Most surgeons performing this approach will require the use of an expensive special operating table. An alternative to the direct anterior approach is the anterior-based muscle-sparing approach. It is also known as the modified Watson-Jones approach, anterolateral muscle-sparing approach, minimally invasive anterolateral approach and the Röttinger approach. With this technique, the hip joint is approached through the muscle interval between the tensor fascia lata and the gluteal muscles, as opposed to the direct anterior approach which is between the sartorius and rectus femoris and the tensor fascia lata. This approach places the femoral nerve at less risk for injury. I perform this technique in the lateral decubitus position, but it can also be performed in the supine position. An inexpensive home-made laminated L-shaped board is clamped on end of table allowing the ipsilateral leg to extend, adduct, and externally rotate during the femoral preparation.

This approach for THA has been reported to produce excellent results. One study reports a complication rate of 0.6% femoral fracture rate and 0.4% revision rate for femoral stem loosening. In a prospective randomised trial looking at the learning curve with new approach, the anterior-based muscle-sparing anterior approach had lower complications than a direct anterior approach. The complications and mean operative time with this approach are reported to be no different than a direct lateral approach. Since this surgical approach is not through an internervous interval, a concern is that this may result in a permanent functional defect as result of injury to the superior gluteal nerve. At a median follow-up of 9.3 months, a MRI study showed 42% of patients with this approach had fat replacement of the tensor fascia lata, which is thought to be irreversible. The clinical significance remains unclear, and inconsequential in my experience. A comparison MRI study showed that there was more damage and atrophy to the gluteus medius muscle with a direct lateral approach at 3 and 12 months. My anecdotal experience is that there is faster recovery and less early pain with this approach.

A study of the first 57 patients I performed showed significantly less pain and faster recovery in the first six weeks in patients performed with the anterior-based muscle-sparing approach when compared to a matched cohort of THA patients performed with a direct lateral approach. From 2004 to 2017, I have performed 1308 total hip replacements with the anterior-based muscle sparing approach. Alternatively, I will use the direct lateral approach for patients with stiff hips with significant flexion and/or external rotation contractures where I anticipate difficulty with femoral exposure, osteoporotic femurs due to increased risk of intraoperative trochanteric fractures, previously operated hips with scarring or retained hardware, and Crowe III-IV dysplastic hips when there may be a need for a femoral shortening or derotational osteotomy. Complications have been very infrequent. This approach is a viable alternative to the direct anterior approach for patients desiring a fast recovery. The anterior-based muscle-sparing approach is the approach that I currently use for all outpatient total hip surgeries.

Orthopaedic joint replacement surgery requires surgical assistants holding retractors in order to adequately visualise the operative field. Typically, total hip and knee replacement operations require at least one surgical assistant and preferably two. As such, tremendous resources are consumed in order to perform elective TJA.

A mechanised pulley system, called the Gripper (Medenvision, Belgium), has been devised to assist with this need for extra “hands” to hold retractors. The Gripper is a table mounted, disposable device used to hold retractors, and is infinitely adjustable with regard to position in space. As such, it can be used in a variety of situations to provide an additional retractor holder, without the need for extra manpower. It is sterile, in the operative field, and can fit retractors with a flat handle. With positioning of the table mounts before prepping and draping, the Gripper can be used during the operation to hold retractors that would otherwise require a surgical assistant. The Gripper can be moved around during different portions of the operation in order to make the most of it use.

In our experience, the Gripper has been most useful in direct anterior approach THA, holding a curved anterior retractor to facilitate acetabular exposure. It is also useful in holding a retractor placed over the tip of the greater trochanter during femoral preparation. In our estimation, it is able to replace a human surgical assistant at a fraction of the cost. Furthermore, the Gripper does not fatigue during the operation and does not compromise the surgical field by needing to adjust its handhold. Because of this, even in an academic center with residents, fellows, and visiting medical students, the Gripper is preferable to human hands holding retractors.

We estimate that a surgical assistant with a starting level salary would have to scrub in on over 300 cases per year in order to make him/herself more cost effective than the Gripper.

The first rule in properly cementing a femoral component is obtaining adequate exposure of the proximal femur. This is achieved reproducibly in anterior approach surgery with anterior and superior capsulotomy, combined with release of the conjoined tendon from the inner trochanter and piriformis tendon retraction, or flip behind the trochanter. This will be demonstrated.

The steps of cementation are well established, and not specific to one approach. They involve entry to the proximal femur in a lateral and posterior position, achieving central alignment within the proximal femur with the broach, application of a cement restrictor to a point 1.5 to 2cm distal to the proposed tip of the implant, appropriate preparation of the cancellous bone to receive the cement, applying cement in a sufficiently doughy state to be able to achieve penetration into the cancellous bone, and mechanical pressurization into that cancellous bone. We routinely apply cement directly to the proximal aspect of the femoral component as the cement sticks to the metal, preventing marrow contents generated during the insertion from contacting the metal. In discussing the factors contributing to a dry surgical field, the importance of relative hypotension achieved from regional anesthesia cannot be overstated.

The main challenges in hip arthrodesis takedown include the decision to perform fusion takedown and the technical difficulties of doing so. In addition to the functional disadvantages of hip fusion, the long-term effects of hip arthrodesis include low back pain and in some cases ipsilateral knee pain. Indications for fusion conversion to THA include arthrodesis malposition, pseudoarthrosis, and ipsilateral knee, low back, contralateral hip problems, and functional disadvantages of ipsilateral hip fusion. When deciding whether or not to take down fusion, consider the severity of the current problem, risks of takedown and likely benefits of takedown. Best results of fusion takedown occur if abductor function is likely to be present. If the abductors are not likely to function well, dearthrodesis may still help, but the patient will have a profound Trendelenburg or Duchenne gait and risk of hip instability will be higher. Abductor assessment can be performed by determining if the abductors contract on physical exam and determining if the previous form of fusion spared the abductors and greater trochanter. EMG and MRI also can be performed to assess the abductors, but value in this setting is unproven. Before dearthrodesis establish realistic expectations: most patients will gain hip motion—but not normal motion, most will see improvement in back/knee pain, but many will become cane-dependent for life.

The main technical issues to overcome involve exposure, femoral neck osteotomy, acetabular preparation, and femoral fixation. Exposure can be conventional posterior, anterolateral or direct anterior with an in-situ femoral neck cut. In complex cases, a transtrochanteric approach is often helpful. The in-situ neck cut is facilitated by fluoroscopy or intraoperative radiograph to make sure the cut is at the correct level and at the correct angle. Be careful not to angle into the pelvis with the cut. Acetabular preparation is more complex because anatomic landmarks often are absent or distorted. Try to find landmarks including ischium, ilium, teardrop, and fovea. Confirm location with fluoroscopy as reaming commences and during reaming. Depth of reaming can be improved by using the fovea (if present) and teardrop on fluoroscopy. Cup fixation is usually an uncemented cup, fixed with multiple screws because bone quality typically is compromised. Femoral fixation is at the surgeon's discretion, recognizing the proximal bone may be distorted in some cases. Postoperative management includes protected weight bearing as needed and heterotopic bone prophylaxis in selected patients.

The direct lateral (or anterolateral) approaches to the hip for revision THA involve detachment of the anterior aspect of the gluteus medius from the trochanter along with a contiguous sleeve of the vastus lateralis. Anterior retraction of this flap of gluteus medius and vastus lateralis and simultaneous posterior retraction of the femur creates an interval for division of gluteus minimus and deeper capsular tissues and exposure of the joint. To enhance reattachment of this flap of the anterior portion of the gluteus medius and vastus lateralis back to the trochanter, an oblique wafer of bone can be elevated along with the muscle off of the anterolateral portion of the trochanter. This bony wafer prevents suture pull out when large nonabsorbable sutures are used around or through the fragment and passed into the bone of the trochanteric bed for reattachment during closure. To prevent excessive splitting proximally into the gluteus medius muscle (and resulting damage to the superior gluteal nerve), it is often helpful to extend the muscle split further distally down into the vastus lateralis. This combined with careful elevation of the gluteal muscles off of the ilium (instead of splitting them) helps provide excellent and safe exposure of the entire rim of the acetabulum and access to the supracetabular region for bone grafting, acetabular augment placement and even fixation of the flanges of a cage.

A simple method for posterior column plating via the anterolateral approach involves contouring of the distal end of the plate around the base of the ischium at the inferior edge of the socket.

When an extended osteotomy of the femur is needed to correct deformity, remove a well-fixed implant or cement, the “extensile” variation of this same surgical approach involves a Wagner style (lateral to medial) osteotomy of the greater trochanter and proximal femur. The anterior portion of the femur after it is osteotomised is elevated as a separate segment while maintaining the soft tissue attachments to the bone as much as possible to aid osteotomy healing. After implant or cement removal, this approach gives excellent direct access to the distal femur for placement of a long stem revision femoral component without bone-implant conflict proximally because of the bow of the femur.

The anterolateral approach (and extensile variants detailed above) can be used routinely and safely in the full range of revision THA procedures, or it can be employed selectively, if desired, in cases at increased risk for dislocation.

A well-fixed uncemented acetabular component is most commonly removed for chronic infection, malposition with recurrent dislocation, and osteolysis. However, other cups may have to be removed for a broken locking mechanism, a bad “track record”, and for metal-on-metal articulation problems. Modern uncemented acetabular components are hemispheres which have 3-dimensional ingrowth patterns. Coatings include titanium or cobalt-chromium alloy beads, mesh, and now the so-called “enhanced coatings”, such as tantalum trabecular metal, various highly porous titanium metals, and 3-D printed metal coatings. These usually pose a problem for safe removal without fracture of the pelvis or creation of notable bone deficiency.

Preoperative planning is essential for safe and efficient removal of these well-fixed components. Strongly consider getting the operative report, component “stickers”, and contacting the implant manufacturer for information. There should a preoperative check list of the equipment and trial implants needed, including various screwdrivers, trial liners, and a chisel system. The first step in component removal is excellent 360-degree exposure of the acetabular rim, and this can be accomplished by several approaches. Then, the acetabular polyethylene liner is removed; a liner that is cemented into a porous shell can be “reamed out” using a specific device. Following this, any central or peripheral screws are removed; broken or stripped screw heads add an additional challenge. A trial acetabular liner is placed, and an acetabular curved chisel system is used. There are two manufacturers of this type of system. Both require the known outer acetabular diameter and the inner diameter of the trial liner. With the curved chisel system and patience, well-fixed components can be safely removed, and the size of the next acetabular component to be implanted is usually 4mm larger than the one removed. There are special inserts for removal of monobloc metal shells. Remember that removal of these well-fixed components is more difficult in patients compared to models, and is just the first step of a successful acetabular revision.

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem.

Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. Forty-two loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines.

More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. Eighty-six percent of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4cm.

Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and the removal of well-fixed femoral stems can be compounded by several pitfalls. In such cases, several removal techniques have been presented in the literature. The most commonly used techniques are the transfemoral osteotomy presented by Wagner and the extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) described by Younger et al. Both techniques allow the surgeon to have better intraoperative exposure of the fixation surfaces of the solid femoral stems. However, the complication rates such as non-union should not be underestimated. Therefore, it is always a good decision to avoid an ETO if alternative techniques exist. The endofemoral surgical technique is an alternative method for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless femoral stems. Tips and tricks of the endofemoral technique for the removal of well-fixed femoral stems are presented.

Infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) is catastrophic, but it is treatable with a high degree of success. Two-stage revision with an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is the most widely accepted method of treatment, and considered by some to be the best method; however, single-stage treatment currently is used widely, and is gaining acceptance. Although antibiotic-loaded cement is considered to be important for antibiotic delivery after surgery, cementless revision is equally successful with one- or two-stage procedures.

Delivery of antibiotics with depot methods, such as cement or bone graft impregnated with antibiotics, is considered to be effective, but the antibiotic levels rapidly deteriorate after the first three days, leaving the cement itself vulnerable to colonization by resistant organisms. Nephrotoxicity is not common, but it does occur, and necessitates removal of the cement. This can be catastrophic if the implants are fixed with antibiotic-impregnated cement.

Success rates of THA revision for infection can be as high as 98%, but this rate is dependent on the organism. Failure rates of 20% are the norm for resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, The cost of this failure rate is huge. Failure probably is due to the low concentration of antibiotics in the operative site. Antibiotic infusion into the operative site achieves concentrations that are hundreds of times higher than can be achieved with any other technique and has the additional advantage of being able to be discontinued in the case of renal or auditory damage. Limited personal experience suggests that the failure rate of revision total hip with resistant organisms is significantly lower with intra-articular delivery than with other currently available methods.

Between January 2002 and July 2013, 9 patients (9 hips) presented with late-onset acute infections in cementless THA with bone-ingrown implants. These patients were all more than 2 years from their original surgery and had acute symptoms of infection for 4 to 9 days. Two were the author's patients and 7 were referred from another institution. None had symptoms until the onset of their infection, and none had postoperative wound complications, fever, or prolonged pain suggestive of a chronic process. All were treated with debridement and head/liner exchange, followed by catheter infusion of intraarticular antibiotics. All remained free of signs of infection at a mean follow-up of 74 months (range, 62–121 months). This sequential series of successful treatment of late-onset infection of osteointegrated total hip replacement suggests that this is a highly effective method. It has the advantages of being a single-stage procedure, and of avoiding the catastrophic surgical procedure of removing fully osteointegrated total hip replacements.

The rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is approximately 1%. As the number of THAs performed each year continue to increase (550,000 by 2030), a corresponding increase in the number of hip PJI cases is likely to occur. A chronic deep infection may be treated by either chronic suppression, irrigation and debridement, single-stage exchange, or two-stage exchange. In the United States, the gold standard for chronic PJI continues to be a two-stage exchange. The benefit of an antibiotic impregnated cement is that they produce higher local concentrations of antibiotics than systemic intravenous administration.

Hip spacers may be either static or articulating. Static spacers are reserved for cases of massive acetabular bone loss in which an articulating spacer is not feasible. A static spacer consists of a block of antibiotic cement in the native acetabulum and antibiotic coated rod in the femoral canal. Limb shortening, loss of soft tissue planes, and disuse osteopenia and muscle atrophy are all limitations of static spacers. In contrast, articulating spacers fulfill the goals of the interim construct during two-stage exchange which is to enhance eradication of the infecting organism through drug elution, to maintain limb length, to facilitate exposure during revision surgery, and to improve functional mobilization. Articulating spacers may be divided into three general categories based on method of spacer creation: Handmade custom spacers, prefabricated spacers, custom molded spacers (hemiarthroplasty molds and molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup). Handmade custom spacers are usually created with K-wire or rush rods coated with antibiotic cement. Handmade spacers are relatively simple to make, they are economical, and the amount and type of antibiotics incorporated can be customised for the infecting organism. Commercially available hemiarthroplasty spacers can be either prefabricated (Spacer G, Exactech, Gainesville. FL) or made intraoperatively (Stage One, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) are available in several head and stem sizes. The advantage of prefabricated spacers is that they do not require additional time to mold in the operating room. The downside of prefabricated spacers is that the antibiotic concentration and type is predetermined. A custom molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup can be made with off the shelf implants or used as part of a commercially available spacer (PROSTALAC, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN). A common antibiotic/cement combination includes Tobramycin (3.6 g/40 g of cement) and vancomycin (1.5 g/40 g of cement). In all of these spacer constructs, the principles of using a high-elution cement mixed without a vacuum and with high doses of heat stable antibiotics are consistent. Tobramycin works synergistically to improve Vancomycin elution properties and is usually added in higher doses. Overall infection eradication is similar between all categories of spacers and range between 90–97%. Complications after placement of an articulating spacer are often specific to the type of spacer used. Handmade spaces that have K-wires for support are at risk for spacer cement fracture. Spacer dislocation is also a common complication in up to 15% of cases with all types of spacers. In addition, periprosthetic fractures can occur postoperatively in up to 10% of patients. Overall, despite this complication profile, articulating antibiotic spacers have excellent rates of infection eradication and offer improved mobilization in the interim two stage period and reduce operative time, complexity, and morbidity during reimplantation.