Most early failures of THA are related to patient factors and technical “surgeon” factors. Most late failures of THA are related to patient factors and device factors. Occasionally unexpected device-specific failure modes cause specific early failure patterns. The most common reasons for early THA failure are infection and instability. Infection risk is strongly influenced by patient factors. Instability early after THA is usually a technical problem, but at times also is patient related. Important late failure modes of THA include loosening, wear and osteolysis, and periprosthetic fracture. Loosening and wear are at least in part device related. Late periprosthetic fracture is almost mainly patient related.

Taken together these data suggest the following:

Most strongly related to patient factors: Early and late infection, periprosthetic fracture and wear and osteolysis.

Total hip arthroplasty is among the most successful interventions in all of medicine and has recently been termed “The Operation of the Century”. Charnley originally stated that “Objectives must be reasonable. Neither surgeons nor engineers will ever make an artificial hip joint that will last 30 years and at some time in this period enable the patient to play football.” and he defined the appropriate patient as generally being over 65 years of age. Hip rating scales developed during this time were consistent with this approach and only required relief of pain and return to normal activities of daily living to achieve a perfect score. Since this time, however, hip arthroplasty has been applied to high numbers of younger, more active individuals and patient expectations have increased. One recent study showed that in spite of a good hip score, only 43% of patients had all of their expectations completely fulfilled following THA.

The current generation of metal-metal hip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has been suggested as an alternative to standard THA which may offer advantages to patients including retention of more native bone, less stress shielding, less thigh pain due to absence of a stem, less limb length discrepancy, and a higher activity level. A recent technology review by the AAOS determined that currently available literature was inadequate to verify any of these suggested potential benefits. The potential complications associated with SRA have been well documented recently. The indications are narrower, the implant is more expensive, the technique is more demanding and less forgiving, and the results are both highly product and surgeon specific. Unless a clinical advantage in the level of function of SRA over THA can be demonstrated, continued enthusiasm for this technique is hard to justify.

To generate data on the level of function of younger more active arthroplasty patients, a national multicentre survey was conducted by an independent university medical interviewing centre with a long track record of conducting state and federal medical surveys. All patients were under 60, high demand (pre-morbid UCLA score > 6) and had received a cementless stem with an advanced bearing surface or an SRA at one of five major total joint centres throughout the country. The detailed questionnaire quantified symptoms and function related to employment, recreation, and sexual function. Patients with SRA had a higher incidence of noises emanating from the hip than other bearing surfaces although this was transient and asymptomatic. SRA patients were much more likely to have less thigh pain than THA, less likely to limp, less likely to perceive a limb length difference, more likely to run for exercise, and more likely to run longer distances.

While some or most of the observed advantages of SRA over THA may be attributable to some degree of selection bias, the inescapable conclusion is that SRA patients are demonstrating clinical advantages that warrants continued utilisation and investigation of this procedure.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip enjoyed a resurgence of enthusiasm. A recent article has documented that the media played a significant role in its popularity, making claims that were not substantiated in scientific literature. Proponents of resurfacing arthroplasty state that it is bone conserving, provides greater stability, enhances range of motion, leads to a more normal gait, facilitates increased activity levels, decreases risk of dislocation, decreases the risk of leg length discrepancy and find that it is easier to insert in the face of deformity or retained hardware. The naysayers state that it is a more difficult operative procedure associated with a higher learning curve. They note that there are few patients who meet the selection criteria and there is an increased risk of fracture of the femoral neck. Finally, there is concern over metal ion toxicity and adverse tissue reaction. Furthermore, as we explore the literature, several studies have observed that resurfacing requires a bigger cup and results in a significantly higher volume of normal bone reamed from the acetabulum. Other studies note decreased range of motion with resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty (THA) secondary to an unfavourable head to neck ratio resulting in increased impingement. While resurfacing is purported to enhance functional outcomes, one randomized trial of 48 patients, 24 each resurfacing and large head THA, compared with 14 healthy control subjects found no difference in gait speed and postural balance evaluations, functional test, and clinical data at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operative. In another study comparing 337 resurfacings with 266 ceramic-on-ceramic THA, at 24 months there was no difference in Harris hip score, pain score or function score, but a statistically greater improved Harris hip range of motion score in THA. In a large meta-analysis study comparing 3269 hip resurfacings (3002 patients) with average follow-up of 3.9 years to 5907 cementless THA (5907 patients) with average follow-up of 8.4 years, the observed rate of femoral revision due to mechanical failure was 2.6% for resurfacing versus 1.3% for THA, yielding annualized rates of 0.67% and 0.15% respectively. An analysis of hip resurfacing data from national joint registries found that hip resurfacing demonstrates an overall increased failure rate compared with THA, except in males younger than 65 years old having a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis and except with head diameters larger than 50 mm, which may be especially relevant as a contraindication for use of the procedure in female patients.

The proximal modular neck in total hip arthroplasty is not a new concept, but there has been a recent resurgence in interest with multiple companies offering proximal modularity. Proponents of neck modularity suggest that inherent advantages include improved soft tissue balancing and decreased risk of dislocation, particularly in cases with difficult anatomy. Favourable results have been reported in DDH and other cases with excessive femoral anteversion, for example. There are numerous theoretical and published negative aspects of proximal neck modularity that should be considered. Modular necks can be an additional source of corrosion and fretting, and specific systems have been recalled over such concerns. There are case reports of dissociation and fracture at the junction. Fracture appears to be a significant issue in some systems. Retroversion of the neck to reduce the chance of dislocation is not necessarily benign with respect to implant fixation and stability, with RSA data suggesting caution in the application of retroverted necks. Modular necks are difficult to dissociate when in vivo, negating the long-term benefit of modular conversion. Finally, proximal neck modularity significantly increases the cost of the implant, without any documented improvement in long-term outcome.

Modular necks offer limited advantages with significant potential downside. On balance of the evidence, the routine use of modular necks in primary total hip arthroplasty is difficult to justify.

Distal neck modularity places a modular connection at a mechanically critical location. However, this is also the location that confers perhaps the greatest clinical utility. Assessment of femoral anteversion in 342 of our THR patients by CT showed a range from −24 to 61 degrees. The use of monoblock stems in some of these deformed femurs therefore must result in a failure to appropriately reconstruct the hip and have increased risks of impingement, instability, accelerated bearing wear or fracture, and adverse local tissue reaction (ATLR). However, the risks of failing to properly reconstruct the hip without neck modularity must be weighed against the additional risks introduced by neck modularity.

There are several critical design, material, and technique variables that are directly associated with higher or lower incidences of problems associated with modular neck femoral components. These include modular neck length, design and material of both parts including the junction design, wall thickness of the receiving junction, assembly force, and bearing diameter and material. With regard to stem design and material, it has been clearly shown that the incidence of titanium neck fractures is higher in stems with a thinner wall-thickness of the receiving junction than in stems with a thicker wall-thickness. Moreover, titanium necks have been largely replaced with CoCr necks with significantly higher yield and fatigue strength. It remains to be seen if the introduction of CoCr necks will decrease or increase the risks associated with distal neck modularity.

With respect to titanium necks, our experience has shown no adverse local tissue reaction, no fractures of short necks (0 of 370) and a 0.34% incidence of fractures in long necks (2/580) at 3 to 8 years following surgery. This lower incidence of neck fracture compared to other reports may relate to the relatively more rigid stem and thicker wall of the junction receiving the neck compared to other stems.

With respect to CoCr modular necks, one device that mated the CoCr modular neck with a beta-titanium alloy femoral component has been shown to have a high incidence of ALTR and has been recalled. While the CoCr on Conventional Titanium Alloy modular neck experience has had a statistically significantly lower incidence of problems, we believe that we have identified two cases of ALTR. If that is the case, the CoCr neck experience may well have a higher incidence of problems that the Ti neck experience.

In summary, placing a modular connection at the stem-neck junction has great clinical utility but this is a very design sensitive location. There are risks associated with the use of non-modular neck components that are incapable of properly reconstructing the spectrum of pathology that presents. This failure can lead to instability, impingement, and polyethylene fracture. Yet, the use of titanium modular necks has a small risk of component fracture while the use of cobalt-chrome modular necks may have a higher risk of adverse local tissue reaction. While the existence of a modular neck may offer great advantages at the time of primary reconstruction and of future revision, currently the risk/benefit for the use of these components is strongest in patients with more significant anatomical abnormalities or more complex revision settings.

Total Hip Replacement has become the most successful operation in the latter half of the 20th century for relief of pain and restoring function of the arthritic hip. Many improvements in surgical technique and implant technology have enhanced recovery, reduced complications, and increased implant survivorship. Minimising the complications of impingement, dislocation, bearing-wear, and implant loosening remain goals for surgeons and implant design.

Patients at higher risk for post-operative dislocation including patients with high pre-op hip ROM, femoral neck fracture, posterior surgical approaches, smaller femoral head sizes, and most importantly folks undergoing revision THA may influence dislocation as much as component position. A tripolar type of articulation, where there is an additional bearing with a mobile polyethylene component between the prosthetic head and the acetabular shell, increase functional head diameter, reduce neck – component impingement, and reduce dislocation. These implants may greatly assist in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the hip and in reducing the high rate of dislocation that follows revision THR as proven by many French authors connecting the world to this innovative technology.

Aseptic loosening of monolithic cups (through inadequate initial fixation) and inner smaller femoral head dislocation from the larger polyethylene head remain risks with dual mobility deign that require longer-term follow-up of newer designs before we declare victory in this space. It appears in patients at high risk for dislocation that a dual mobility type articulation may be worth the potential trade off of increased volumetric wear, intra-prosthetic dislocations, and acetabular loosening. Without additional outcomes data in this space wide spread use should be cautious.

A conceptually new acetabular design is currently available when performing a total hip arthroplasty – the dual mobility socket. Essentially this is a press-fit acetabular component with a polished surface that articulates with a large polyethylene head with a 28 mm ball inserted into that polyethylene in a similar fashion to a bipolar design.

Proponents of this design advocate its use to reduce the risk of dislocation, and it is being offered as an alternative to constrained liners and also as a potential prophylactic application in revision and high risk patients.

The concerns regarding this construct include: 1.

Wear

A large polyethylene head articulating against a polished metal surface will have much greater wear than a conventional metal against poly bearing. Hip simulator data has shown this previously. To demonstrate a reduction in wear, one must compare unlike polyethylenes, or extremes in component positioning.

There are many options available to both manage and to prevent hip instability. Any new implant must show equivalence to current devices on the many fronts of wear, fixation, midterm results, complications and costs.

New technology in joint replacement design and materials adds cost which must be documented by improved outcomes. This is not always the case as the recent metal/metal data has shown. The current economics of arthroplasty surgery have put increasing financial pressure on hospitals and will progress under new health care legislation. New technology must be cost effective and this will be increasingly difficult in an era of outstanding long term results with current designs. Cost may necessitate less expensive alternatives, e.g. generic implants, in arthroplasty patients.

Joint replacement surgery has evolved over the past four decades into a highly successful surgical procedure. Earlier designs and materials which demonstrated inferior functional and long term results have disappeared in a Darwinian fashion. Through this evolutionary process many of the current designs have proven efficacy and durability. Current outcome data indicates that hip and knee designs demonstrate 90–95% success rates at 15 year follow-up. Technologic advances are necessary to improve implant design and materials, however, in an environment of reduced reimbursement to hospitals can the increase cost be justified.

The rationale that technology in medicine would be expensive at the outset yet be cost effective eventually has in many areas not been the case. Currently about one half of the rapid increase in health care costs in relation to GNP may be attributed to technology. Uwe Reinhardt, an economist at Princeton University, in referring to new technology has stated that the health care system provides misaligned incentives that create over-utilisation or misutilisation of everything that is new. It is now common knowledge among health care economists that if the cost of health care is to be controlled the growth of technology must be constrained.

Increasingly as new technology emerges the question will be: what is the cost-benefit analysis. A new era of comparative effectiveness research is being launched and will become predominant in medicine and arthroplasty surgery in the future. What is the newest may not always be the best. According to Reinhardt there is a need for comparative effectiveness studies of emerging and existing technology so that the new can be priced in a way that reflects its incremental value. New technology must demonstrate its benefit to justify its cost, often in arthroplasty there is little data available to document these better outcomes.

In a recent study by Bozic the cost effectiveness of new technologies were evaluated. Based on the authors' findings for an alternative bearing with an incremental cost of $2000 to be cost saving for a 50 year old there would have to be a 19% reduction in 20 year failure rates. The likelihood of cost savings for these alternate bearings in patients 63 or older is highly unlikely at current costs. Newer biomaterials (metal/metal, ceramic/ceramic, highly cross linked polyethylene) also have limited outcome analysis in patients beyond short to mid-term follow-up evaluation and all of these technologies add significant cost to the implant. With diminishing reimbursement careful analysis of utilisation of these newer technologies must be weighed if hospitals are to maintain economic viability.

The pharmaceutical, airline, and food industries have all moved toward generic products which are less costly and this will be the trend in the future in prosthetic implants as well. Newer technologies must demonstrate their efficacy in long term follow-up and be clearly superior to conventional implants. This is not always the case as new data on metal-metal implants is demonstrating. Change is not always progress.

First, we need to define “contemporary UHMWPE”. Then we can discuss whether or not this is “the ultimate bearing partner”. The essential criterion for contemporary UHMWPE is intentional crosslinking. There are a number of such acetabular bearing products in the worldwide marketplace. They can differ in several ways including the base resin, the method of consolidation, the method of crosslinking, remelting v. annealing, the packaging and method of sterilisation, and the incorporation of any antioxidant. Thus “contemporary UHMWPE” is not one material, but a family of materials that may have some practical (clinical) differences. There is one essential similarity: substantially reduced wear and osteolysis compared to UHMWPE that is not intentionally crosslinked.

In one literature review, Kurtz et al. reported a weighted-average femoral head penetration rate (wear) for crosslinked acetabular bearings of 0.042 mm/year based on 28 studies (n = 1,503 hips) and 0.137 mm/year for non-crosslinked bearing based on 18 studies (n = 695 hips). The pooled odds ratio for the risk of osteolysis in crosslinked versus conventional liners was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.06–0.27) among studies with minimum 5-year follow-up. Reduction in femoral head penetration or osteolysis risk was not established for large-diameter (>32 mm) femoral heads. In another minimum 5 year follow-up study, Lachiewicz et al. reported that there was no hip with pelvic or femoral osteolysis. They found no association between femoral head size and the linear wear rate, but observed an association between larger (36- and 40-mm) head size with higher volumetric wear rate and higher total volumetric wear.

Leung et al. compared wear, osteolysis incidence, location, and volume on CT scans between 40 hips with non-crosslinked UHMWPE and 36 hips with crosslinked UHMWPE, at a minimum of 5 years. The incidence of osteolysis was statistically greater for patients with non-crosslinked UHMWPE (11/40, 28%) compared to patients with crosslinked UHMWPE (3/36, 8%; P = 0.04). The average lesion volume for hips with non-crosslinked liners (7.5 ± 6.7 cm³) was significantly greater than the average lesion volume for hips implanted with crosslinked liners (1.2 ± 0.1 cm³, P = 0.01).

Bragdon et al. combined a single-centre and two multicentre studies to include 768 primary patients (head size 26–36 mm) with a minimum of 7 years follow-up. Serial plain radiographs showed no osteolysis. The average femoral head penetration rates did not correlate with time in vivo for patients with standard femoral head sizes. There was an indication of higher wear in patients with 36-mm diameter bearings; it was below the threshold for producing osteolysis.

Battenberg et al. quantified the activity of 14 healthy patients with a well-functioning THA at two time periods: early (within 3.5 years of implantation) and late (10–13 postoperative years). Wear was measured on serial radiographs using edge detection-based software. Mean activity decreased by 16% from the early to the late period. Mean gait speed decreased by 9%. Gait speed was 26% slower for patients ≥65 years than for patients <65 years. The mean linear penetration rate decreased by 42% from the first 5 years (early wear rate) to the next 8 years (late wear rate, 5–13 years): 0.043 mm/year to 0.025 mm/year. The greatest patient activity and wear occur during the first 5 years. Walking speed and gait cycles both decreased with aging, resulting in deceasing wear and risk of osteolysis over time.

Crosslinked UHMWPE has consistently demonstrated decreased wear and osteolysis with up to 13 years follow-up. Volumetric wear is increased with larger diameter bearings but appears to be below the osteolysis threshold for most hips, especially considering that patient activity decreases with their aging.

Cement is the commonest method used to fix femoral components in the UK. This is not surprising as in the UK cemented fixation has provided better results than cementless fixation. The results of cemented fixation do however depend on the design of the stem. Polished collarless tapered stems are now the most widely used stems in the UK. These stems subside within the cement mantle thus compressing the cement and cement-bone interface and preventing these from failing. They are thus very tolerant of poor quality cementing. As a result aseptic loosening is extraordinarily rare even in young active patients. Compared with cementless fixation cement is very forgiving. It can be used with ease whatever the anatomy of the proximal femur and whatever the bone quality. Correct leg length can also easily be achieved. Thigh pain does not occur and intra-operative fractures are very rare. The antibiotics in the cement decrease the incidence of infection. In addition cement provides an effective barrier to particulate debris and joint fluid under pressure. The only real disadvantage of cemented fixation is that it may take longer than cementless fixation. However this extra time spent is compensated by the cheaper implant costs.

Cementless fixation has become dominant for THR throughout the world, but are all stem geometries equivalent in results? Registries are the best source for studying this question because they are absent of personal bias. Results at 5 years allow separation of implants so this time frame was used. Comparing the same articulations (ceramic or metal-on- polyethylene), cementless stems with proximal enhancement (elliptical shape), or a tapered stem with rectangular cross section, have performed better than stems with a slim (blade) AP geometry. Almost all cementless stems reported to registries today are broached only tapered in design.

As an increasing number of young, active large patients become candidates for total hip replacements, there is an increasingly urgent need to identify arthroplasties that will be durable, highly functional and amenable to possible future successful revision. In an era when cemented femoral stems were the primary implant option, the concept of a surface replacement was attractive and, perhaps, appropriate. However, cementless femoral stems of many designs now provide dependable long term fixation and excellent, near normal function.

However, a number of issues related to cementless stem fixation could be further improved: –

Optimisation of load transfer to proximal femur to minimize fracture risk and maximize bone preservation

The potential benefits of short stem femoral THA implants include: –

Ease of insertion

However, a number of potential drawbacks may be associated with the use of cementless short stems: –

Initial and durable fixation may be highly sensitive to implant design and surface treatment.

At this time, it is important to realize that not all short stem implants are equal. In view of the reliability of a large number of uncemented femoral stems of conventional length, surgeons should base their use of specific short stems upon clinical evidence of their safety and durability.

1.

Do large heads result in better stability in practice?

The cemented acetabular component has been essentially abandoned, due to the reliable and durable fixation provided by bone ingrowth into cementless acetabular components of many different designs. A variety of porous surfaces including sintered beads, titanium fibermetal, plasma sprayed titanium, and ultraporous tantalum have been shown to result in significant osteointegration, and provide long term fixation of cementless acetabular components. New ultraporous metals will also likely prove to perform similarly, however, their advantages in the primary THA are unclear.

Most currently available cementless acetabular components rely on obtaining initial “interference” or “frictional” fit provided by relative underreaming. Many designs incorporate additional features such as screws, pegs, and fins to limit implant micromotion and augment initial fixation until early tissue ingrowth occurs. “Underreaming” by more than 1 mm has been associated with incomplete component seating and increased incidence of acetabular fracture. Knowledge of the geometry of the component by the surgeon is recommended, since some designs are elliptical and have a built-in degree of interference fit. Screws used to augment acetabular fixation in the primary THA can typically be restricted to the area of the acetabular dome (cluster configuration) and cups with multiple holes are usually unnecessary and may be undesirable as they allow access of wear debris to the acetabular implant-bone interface.

In order to minimize backside wear and dissociation of the acetabular liner, modular components need to have a well-designed locking mechanism. Retrieval studies have shown that the peripheral rim of the acetabular liner is most susceptible to oxidative degradation and the integrity of the locking mechanism in this area can be compromised with time. Non-modular, “one piece” components eliminate these concerns, but most of these designs rely on initial frictional fit alone for stability. In the event that the position of a nonmodular component needs to be changed intra-operatively, the quality of frictional fit after repositioning can be diminished and may not be sufficient for implant stability. Modular components that incorporate screws, allow for acetabular component repositioning and adjunctive fixation with screws. Many newer acetabular component designs can accommodate a modular liner for either a metal on polyethylene, ceramic on ceramic or metal on metal bearing.

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/blood management/preferred anesthetics

There is continuing debate among orthopedists regarding the appropriate treatment of femoral neck fractures, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), Total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty. In 2003 310,000 patients were hospitalized for hip fracture in the United States and about one-third were treated with total hip arthroplasty. Worldwide, the total number of hip fractures is expected to surpass 6 million by the year 2050. In a survey distributed by the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, and of the 381 members who responded, 85% preferred hemiarthroplasty, 2% preferred ORIF and 13% preferred THA. The decision to perform internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or THA is based on comminution of the fracture activity level and independence, bone quality, presence of rheumatoid or degenerative arthritis, and mental status. Evidence based practice indicates that in a young patient with good bone stock and a fracture with relatively low comminution an ORIF is the treatment of choice. If the patient has a comminuted fracture with poor bone quality, minimal DJD, no RA, and low activity demand a hemiarthroplasty is a reasonable choice. If the patient has a comminuted fracture with poor bone quality, DJD and high activity demand a total hip replacement is a reasonable choice.

Although the vast majority of fractures of the proximal femur will heal with well-done internal fixation, occasionally failure of fixation will occur. Having effective salvage options is important to restore function and minimize complications. In general, it is logical to separate salvage options into those for fractures of the femoral neck, and those for fractures of the intertrochanteric region. Additionally, patient age and remaining bone stock should be considered.

Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: All efforts are focused on preserving the native femoral neck. Valgus producing osteotomy is typically indicated, and can be successful even with small patches of AVN.

Femoral neck fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty is generally most predictable. Be prepared for very poor bone quality. Supplement uncemented acetabular component with multiple screws. Be prepared to cement femoral component if necessary.

Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, young patients: Repeat internal fixation attempts with fixed angle devices (such as a 95 degree blade plate) and bone grafting generally preferred. Avoid varus of proximal fragment and target inferior femoral head bone.

Intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure salvage, older patients: Total hip arthroplasty preferred. Long stems to bypass femoral shaft stress risers and “calcar replacement” stems may be necessary due to proximal bone defects. Trochanteric fixation must be stable. Results are generally good but trochanteric complaints are common.

ORIF is the treatment of choice for the majority of acetabular fractures with the ultimate goal of native hip preservation. As long as anatomic reduction and joint congruency is achieved, the results of ORIF have led to good to excellent outcomes. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) after acetabular fracture is indicated: 1.) acutely in the setting of a fracture where ORIF has been shown to portray a poor prognosis (severe femoral head and/or posterior wall impaction, dome comminution (gull sign) or 2.) in the presence of the sequelae of acetabular fractures such as posttraumatic arthritis or osteonecrosis. Independent of the setting, THA after acetabular fracture presents unique challenges to the orthopaedic surgeon and in many instances requires a team approach that includes both joint reconstruction and trauma specialists. The main goal of the operation is to restore continuity of the fractured columns prior to implantation of an uncemented acetabular component. Technical challenges include infection, residual pelvic deformity, acetabular bone loss and/ or ununited fractures, osteonecrosis of bone fragments, retained hardware, heterotopic ossification, sciatic nerve compromise, and the difficulties in obtaining long-term socket fixation. Careful pre-operative assessment with review of x-rays and CT scans to assess bone loss, fracture nonunion, and infection is necessary. The surgeon must anticipate more blood loss, longer operative times, and difficulties with exposure and must anticipate the need of special tools intra-operatively such as pelvic reconstruction plates, use of autogenous bone graft, metal cutting instruments and post-operative heterotopic ossification prophylaxis either in the form of NSAIDS or radiation. In case of a necrosis, nonunion, or bone loss principles of revision total hip arthroplasty are commonly used and today the use of highly porous metals is particularly useful. Cemented acetabular components should be avoided. Care should be taken with cup position as distorted anatomy may influence cup position and bony impingement may lead to dislocation. The results of THA in general has provided excellent pain relief and functional improvement but the biggest historical problem has been socket fixation and bearing surface wear, hopefully now improved with the advent of highly porous metals and alternative bearing surfaces.

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent function. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures requires careful pre-operative planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. The key issues here are around identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, understanding the possible risks and avoiding them and using appropriate technique.

There are a number of recognized risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures. The prevalence of intra-operative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia/osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intra-operative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, as seen in secondary degenerative joint disease following developmental dysplasia of the hip may also increase the risk of intra-operative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intra-operative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for post-operative femoral fractures include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex.

Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are increasingly recognized. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. Both over- and under-reaming are significant risk factors for acetabular fractures during total hip replacement. It is imperative to deal with the osteopenic patient gently and appropriately, being aware of the rim on the acetabular side and having the capacity for screw fixation where needed, having an understanding of where you wish to place your components and creating the appropriate runways for them, thinking about the stability of an implant as it is inserted and understanding that an implant that is less stable than expected probably is associated with either a size mismatch, a fracture or an implant that will not sit properly probably requires more or a different direction of reaming rather than harder blows with a hammer. A typical example where extra care is required is the scenario of a fractured neck of femur that requires total hip arthroplasty. The virgin native acetabulum in a patient likely to have some bony deficiency may be more difficult to deal with as it has a higher fracture risk.

Pre-operative templating helps to identify the correct entry point for preparation of the lateral runway for linear insertion of a femoral stem. If resistance is met during insertion, the situation should be re-appraised to ensure that the direction and level of the rasp and prosthesis are the same. This reduces the risk of varus/valgus positioning which increases the risk of intra- and post-operative fractures. It is also important to avoid a change of version during insertion of the prosthesis as this can lead to high stresses.

Periprosthetic fractures present several unique challenges including gaining fixation around implants, poor bone quality and deciding on an appropriate treatment strategy.

The excitement and enthusiasm that accompanies the introduction of many new technologies and techniques can be self-sustaining, meaning that the appeal of doing something new or different (not necessarily doing something better) becomes the prime driver. Such is likely the case today with the direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty. Can THA be done successfully through a direct anterior approach? Certainly the answer is yes; and with experience it can be done in relatively broad groups of patients with an acceptable risk of complications. Is it a better way to do THA than other approaches? Well probably not in 2012.

Contemporary THA done with a variety of approaches and coupled with advanced anesthetic, pain management and rapid rehabilitation protocols has been shown to be safe and effective with both short hospital stays (48 hours) and even outpatient surgery in selected patients. No substantial clinical advantage has been shown to date with a direct anterior approach. The sometimes extraordinary claims associated with the direct anterior approach are accompanied by relatively ordinary data.

The purported benefits of direct anterior related to more rapid recovery, better function, or a lower dislocation risk just have not proved to be demonstrable in broad groups of patients. In regard to recovery there are now several studies suggesting no difference at 2 hours; 2 days; 2 weeks or 2 years after surgery; and likely no difference at 2 months either. In regard to function there are now multiple gait analysis studies with no demonstrable benefit at 2 weeks or 6 weeks. In regard to lower risk of dislocation if we pool the data from big published studies Sariali (1.5%) Matta (0.6%) Jewett (1%) and Woolson (0%) the mean is 0.88%. Interestingly, contemporary posterior approach THA with formal capsular repair also has <1% dislocation rate when we look at published data from White (0.5%) Pagnano (0.3%) and Dorr (0%).

The direct anterior does come at a cost including: longer operative times; additional equipment and/or personnel; unique complications; and in some techniques the need for intra-operative fluoroscopy with attendant exposure to radiation for the surgeon and staff.

It is clear in 2012 that the direct anterior approach is just another technique for performing a very successful procedure, namely total hip arthroplasty. With advanced anesthetic, pain management, and rapid rehabilitation protocols it will be extremely difficult to prove any marginal benefit associated with THA surgical technique. To summarize the available data on direct anterior THA it is not unreasonable to conclude that “the extraordinary claims are accompanied by very ordinary data.”

Direct anterior approach (DAA) using the Hueter interval for total hip replacement (THA) provides an inter-nervous and inter-muscular access to the hip joint. Although it is technically demanding, the learning curve has been shown to be around 40 cases and 6 months in a high-volume joint surgeon's practice. A level-one study has demonstrated that DAA provides equal or better results and an equivalent rate of complications when compared to the highly utilized direct lateral approach. Using the available evidence to perform a multi-criteria decision analysis we demonstrated that DAA can be the most efficient approach to perform THA. From our standpoint, there is no reason to speculate a surgical approach with such advantages will be abandoned in the future. The DAA is here to stay, and may become the gold standard for THA.

Instability after total hip arthroplasty is the primary cause for revision surgery and is a frequent complication following revision surgery for any reason (Bozic et al, JBJS 2009). Surgical management of the unstable hip has not been uniformly successful with the best results occurring in those hips in which an identifiable cause of instability can be determined (Daly & Morrey, JBJS 1992). It was these sobering findings that lead to the development of and increased use of constrained acetabular components.

While the results of revision surgery for instability using constrained components have been encouraging (Shapiro, Padgett, Sculco, J Arthroplasty 2003) with a re-dislocation rate of less than 3%, reoperation for other reasons have noted to increase with time. The commonly used tripolar configuration has been susceptible to bearing damage at both the inner and outer bearing surface by the nature of the constrained mechanism (Shah, Padgett, Wright, J Arthroplasty 2009). In addition, we have noted instances of fixation failure directly related to the constrained acetabular device either from loss of implant fixation to the pelvis with or without cement (Yun, Padgett, Dorr, J Arthroplasty 2005).

The observation of these failure modes ranging from either fixation failures to overt biomaterial failure have lead us to be extremely cautious in the “routine” use of constrained liners in revision THR. Implant instability due to poor position should be revised as appropriate to correct alignment. The use of either larger diameter heads or the emerging use of dual mobility articulations seems more appropriate at this time.

In the revision situation, there are times where larger heads are just not enough to obtain and maintain stability. The two most relevant times that this is the case is in patients with very lax tissues, or in patients with insufficient or absent soft tissues, especially abductor mechanisms. In addition, in cases where a revision is being performed for dislocation and components looked well-positioned, constrained liners have been extremely beneficial in our hands.

Constrained acetabular liners have been available for close to two decades. Two basic types of liners are available. The type first developed by Joint Medical Products was the SROM constrained liner which captured the femoral head with a locking ring in the polyethylene. These liners may have better results with larger head sizes because the hip can be taken through a larger range of motion (with larger head sizes) before the locking ring is stressed. The second type of constraining liner was developed by Osteonics (Stryker). It consisted of a tripolar replacement which is constrained by a locking ring in the outer polyethylene of the device. Indications for constrained liners include patients undergoing primary arthroplasty who are low demand and have dementia or hip muscle weakness or spasticity. Indications for constrained liners in the revision situation include cases with previously failed operations for instability, elderly low demand patients with instability, cases with poor or absent hip musculature, and cases with well positioned acetabular and femoral components and with hip instability. In this last scenario we cement the liners into fixed shells.

Our results at average 10-year follow-up in 101 hips, demonstrate a 6% failure of the device. Four hips were revised for acetabular loosening and four hips for femoral loosening. One additional hip was revised for acetabular osteolysis. Considering the difficulty of the cases we consider these results to be quite encouraging. At average 3.9 year follow-up of 31 cases where the liner was cemented into the secure shell only one case failed by dislodgement of the liner and one case by fracture of the locking mechanism.

Our experience has led to the following technical recommendation: (1) if cementing the component score the liner and make sure it is contained within the shell (2) avoid inserting the liner into a grossly malpositioned shell (3) avoid positioning the elevated rim of the liner into a position where impingement might occur and (4) avoid placing the shell and constrained liner in cases with massive acetabular allografts unless additional fixation, i.e. cages, are utilized. Especially in the elderly, these liners are our components of choice for many pre-operative and intra-operative cases of instability.

It has been proposed that a major advantage of surface replacement is that it is easy to revise and that the outcome of such revisions is good. This seems logical as the femoral head can easily be removed, the acetabular component can be cut out and a primary hip replacement can be inserted. Indeed a number of studies have shown good outcome following revision, particularly for femoral neck fracture. When we initially reviewed the results of our revisions we found that the operations were straight forward and the results were good provided the reasons for revision were neck fractures, loosening, infection and causes other than soft tissue reactions. When the reason for revision was soft tissue reaction, otherwise known as pseudotumour, the outcome was unsatisfactory with poor hip scores, and high rates of complications, revisions and recurrences. These were generally a manifestation of the soft tissue damage caused by the pseudotumours. We therefor recommended that early revisions should be considered with soft tissue reaction. By undertaking revisions earlier we have found that the results have improved but there are still cases with poor outcomes.

Surface replacement of the hip has become established as an alternative treatment to total hip replacement in the younger, active, male patient. By the very nature of preserving the femoral head and neck, there may be failures due to femoral neck fracture and femoral component loosening. Additionally, revisions of hip resurfacing for acetabular loosening may be necessary. Other scientific papers have described problems that may arise as a result of the metal-on-metal bearing either due to excess metal production or an immunologic-mediated reaction to the metal debris.

Grammatopolous et al. describe poor results of revisions of surface replacements due to massive tissue destruction at the time of revision surgery, persistent pain, and swelling. In my experience with hip resurfacing, this complication is extremely rare. In my series of 925 resurfacings with a minimum of 2 year follow up, 12 revisions (1.3%) have been performed. Of these revisions, only 3 (0.3%) were for complications related to the metal-on-metal bearing; 2 for edge-loading and excess metal production, and 1 for metal hypersensitivity. None of the revision cases have had abductor destruction, or nerve/vascular involvement. Reconstruction of the joint was carried out with standard and revision components; post-operative function of these patients has been comparable to that of a primary total hip replacement. With careful monitoring of the post-operative resurfacing patient, problems can be identified early and surface replacement conversion can be performed with excellent results.

The majority of patients who develop hip arthritis have a mechanical abnormality of the joint. The structural abnormalities range from instability (DDH) to impingement. Impingement leads to osteoarthritis by chronic damage to the acetabular labrum and adjacent cartilage.

In situations of endstage secondary DJD, hip arthroplasty is the most reliable treatment choice. In young patients with viable articular cartilage, joint salvage is indicated. Treatment should be directed at resolving the structural abnormalities that create the impingement.

Femoral abnormalities corrected by osteotomy or increased head-neck offset by chondro-osteoplasty creating a satisfactory head-neck offset. This can safely be done via anterior surgical dislocation or arthroscopically. The acetabular-labral lesions can be debrided and/or repaired. Acetabular abnormalities should be corrected by “reverse” PAO in those with acetabular retroversion or anterior acetabular debridement in those with satisfactory posterior coverage and a damaged anterior rim.

Often combinations of the above are indicated.

A study by Harris reported a 40% incidence of femoral and acetabular dysplasia in routine idiopathic osteoarthritic patients. Fortunately most are minimally dysplastic requiring little modification from standard total hip surgical techniques. However, as the degree of dysplasia increases numerous anatomic distortions are present. These include high hip centres, relative acetabular retroversion, soft bone in the true acetabular area, increased femoral neck anteversion and relative posteriorly positioned greater trochanters, metaphyseal/diaphyseal size mismatch, and small femoral canals. Total hip replacements for these patients have known higher risks for earlier loosening, dislocation, and neurovascular injuries.

Use of medialised small uncemented acetabular components placed in the anatomic acetabulum, modular uncemented femoral components, and diaphyseal rotational and shortening osteotomies has become the standard method of treatment. In 2007, we reported our experience with this technique in 23 cases utilising a subtrochanteric femoral osteotomy with a 5–14 year follow-up. There were 4 Crowe I, 3 Crowe II, 5 Crowe III, and 11 Crowe IV cases. All osteotomies healed. There were no femoral components revised. One acetabular component was revised for a recalled component. 3 acetabular liners were revised for wear (2 were very small cups with 4.7 mm poly thickness). 4 patients sustained dislocations, with 2 closed and 2 open reductions. There were no neurovascular injuries.

The Crowe classification is commonly used to pre-operatively classify the degree of dysplasia. However, there are large variations in these anatomic distortions within each class, so it is difficult to pre-operatively plan the acetabular component size needed and if one will need to do shortening and/or rotational osteotomy. So the surgeon needs to bring their entire bag of tricks and tools for these surgeries.

Protrusio acetabuli can be either primary or secondary. Primary or idiopathic protrusio is a rare condition of unknown etiology. Secondary protrusio may be associated with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ankylosing spondylitis, osteoarthritis, osteomalacia, trauma and Paget's disease. Challenges in surgery include lack of bone stock, deficient medial support to the cup, difficulty in dislocating the femoral head, and medialisation of the hip joint centre. Several surgical techniques have been described: use of cement alone without bone graft; morsellised impacted autograft or allograft with a cemented cup; metal cages, reinforcement rings, and solid grafts.

We describe our technique of impaction grafting using autologous bone and a cementless porous-coated hemispherical cup without the use of acetabular rings or cages in patients with an average age of 46 years. Protrusion was graded depending on distance of medial wall from Kohler's line as mild (1–5 mm medial), moderate (6–15 mm medial) and severe if it was more than 15 mm medial to the Kohler's line. All patients were operated in the lateral position using a modified Hardinge's anterolateral approach. Adductor tenotomy may be required in cases of severely stiff hips. After careful dislocation of the femoral head, it was sectioned in situ into slivers to facilitate obtaining the graft. The periphery was reamed and care was taken to preserve the membrane lining the floor of the defect. Morsellised graft was impacted with hemispherical impactors and the trial cup 1–2 mm larger than the last reamer placed in the desired position. The final socket was then inserted. Femoral preparation was performed in routine fashion.

The mean pre-operative Harris hip score of 52 improved to 85 points at a mean follow up of 4 years. The average acetabular inclination angle was 42 degrees. Our results have shown incorporation of the graft in all cases. There was no evidence of progression of the protrusio or cup loosening in any of the cases. Thus far, our hips have not shown osteolytic lesions. The technique described is a satisfactory biological solution of restoring bone stock particularly in young and middle-aged patients.

Hip osteoarthritis is prevalent in 8%–28% of patients with Down's Syndrome. Presence of disabling hip pain is increased along with prolonged life expectancy, suggesting total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Seven consecutive patients (9 hips) with Down's syndrome had primary THA. Coxarthrosis was secondary to developmental hip dysplasia in 6 patients and slipped capital epiphysis in 1 patient. In 5 patients (7 hips) a previous hip surgery was performed. Average clinical and radiological follow up was 9.9 ± 6.4 years (range 2–22.5, median 9.3). Average age of patients at THA was 34.8 ± 7.5 years (range 25–47, median 35.4). In 2 patients (3 hips) a trochanteric slide was used for the surgical approach, while a lateral transgluteal approach was used in the remaining patients. One way ANOVA test was used to compare Harris Hip Scores (HHS) at post-operative follow-up.

HHS improved significantly (p=0.008) improved from 4.1 ± 15.1 (range 18.5–65, median 45) to 84.3 ± 7.7 (range 70–93, median 85.8 at 4 year follow up. HHS (average 70.9 ± 6.2, range 66.5–80, median 68) remained essentially unchanged (p=0.43) at 8 year follow-up. Two patients required revision arthroplasty for stem loosening at 6 and 16 years post THA, respectively. The first patient is 7 years post revision and ambulates without aids. The second patient is 6.1 years post revision and ambulates with a walker. Six of the THAs required a constrained liner. No dislocations or deep infections were encountered.

THA is reliable surgical intervention in patients with Down's Syndrome and symptomatic coxarthrosis.

Osteonecrosis is a pathologic bone condition caused by a disruption in the osseous circulation and impairment of normal cellular function which ultimately leads to bone infarction, osteocyte death, and joint degeneration. The incidence of osteonecrosis in the general population has been reported to be approximately 3 per 100,000 people. Up to 20,000 new cases are diagnosed each year and this condition is the indication for surgery in approximately 10% of all total hip arthroplasties performed in the United States. The hip is the most common joint affected, with approximately 75% of cases occurring in this joint, although multifocal osteonecrosis (defined as involvement of more than 3 joints) can also occur. Other commonly observed locations for osteonecrotic lesions include the knee, shoulder, wrist, and ankle.

Joint preserving procedures may be performed for early stages without evidence of collapse, while intermediate lesions (e.g. femoral head collapse < 2 mm) may be candidates for joint preserving procedures such as bone grafting and rotational or proximal femoral varus osteotomies. However, total hip arthroplasty is usually required in advanced cases where there are large lesions, deformation of the femoral head, or acetabular involvement.

Osteonecrosis has been traditionally associated with poor outcomes following total hip arthroplasty. However, recent studies using newer implant designs and surgical techniques have demonstrated outcomes comparable to the general total hip arthroplasty population. Johansson and colleagues, in a systematic reviewed of the literature, observed a decrease in the revision rate from 17% to 3% for arthroplasties performed later than 1990. The clinical outcomes were also comparable between patients who had osteoarthritis and those who had osteonecrosis.

The young age at which these patients often present makes bearing surface choice challenging. Bearings that have low liner wear rates, such as ceramic bearings, had concerns with implant durability following reports of chipping and fracture of the ceramic. However, recent studies evaluating ceramic bearings in young patients with osteonecrosis have demonstrated that newer third and fourth generation ceramics have solved many of these issues. Byun et al. evaluated the clinical outcomes of ceramic bearings in patients younger than 30 years who had osteonecrosis and observed that at six year follow-up, none of the bearings had failed and that 95% of patients were able to continue with their prior occupation. Similar results at even longer follow-up periods were reported by Kim and colleagues who observed no failures in 93 ceramic hips at a mean follow-up of 11 years.

Polyethylene wear continues to be a concern for these younger, more active patients. Early studies with non-highly cross linked polyethylene demonstrated high wear rates in these patients. Although newer polyethylene designs have become available which have demonstrated substantially lower wear than the traditional ultra high molecular weight polyethylene cups of the recent past, further studies are needed with these newer polyethylene bearings in the osteonecrosis population.

The goal of treatment for femoral head osteonecrosis remains early diagnosis and joint preservation. For patients who present with femoral head collapse or acetabular involvement, total hip arthroplasty often is the only treatment option left. Although clinical outcomes for these patients were initially poor in earlier reports, the advent of modern cementless arthroplasty components, refined surgical techniques, and newer bearing designs have greatly improved the outcomes of this procedure.

Arthritis of the hip is a relatively common problem in patients with neuromuscular disorders due to muscle imbalance around the hip from weakness, paralysis, contractures and spasticity. Neuromuscular disorders such as cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease, poliomyelitis, previous cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and Charcot arthropathy have been considered by many to be relative contraindications to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The presence of certain anatomic abnormalities (excessive femoral anteversion, acetabular dysplasia, leg length discrepancy (LLD) and coax valga) and significant soft tissue contractures, muscle imbalance, and muscular weakness make THA a challenging surgical procedure in this patient population, and can predispose to dislocation and poor functional outcome following surgery. THA can, however, result in substantial pain relief and functional improvement in patients with significant hip arthritis and neuromuscular disorders, and can be safely performed, provided certain technical considerations are addressed.

The patient's motor strength and functional status (ambulatory vs. “sitter”) should be carefully assessed pre-operatively, since both of these factors may affect the choice of surgical approach and component position. Significant soft tissue contractures should be released at the time of surgery. Although these can be frequently performed “open,” percutaneous adductor tenotomy is occasionally necessary for patients with significant adduction contractures. Patients requiring significant soft tissue releases may benefit from 6 weeks of bracing to allow soft tissues to heal in appropriately and minimize risk of dislocation during this period of time.

Use of modular femoral components that allow for correction of excessive femoral anteversion, should be considered in patients with coexistent dysplasia and neuromuscular disease (i.e. CP or polio). Large femoral head components should also be considered in patients with increased risk factors for dislocation. Despite their obvious theoretical advantages, the use of large head metal on metal THAs should be used with extreme caution in view of growing concerns about these devices. Although constrained acetabular liners are associated with an increased risk of mechanical failure, their use should be strongly considered in patients with significant motor weakness or major soft tissue deficiencies. Meticulous soft tissue closure of the capsule of the hip is recommended, especially when performing THA through a posterior approach. Patients with neuromuscular disorders associated with spasticity and involuntary movements need to be optimally treated medically prior to and indefinitely after THA.

There are limited reports of outcomes following THA in patients with neuromuscular disorders, however some generalisations based on underlying diagnosis can be made. Patients with cerebral palsy and polio frequently have acetabular dysplasia, excessive femoral anteversion and LLD, and although durability does not seem to be a major concern, dislocation and instability is relatively common and needs to be addressed. Durability and instability do not appear to be major concerns in patients with Parkinsons disease, however, these patients have frequent medical complications perioperatively and have deterioration in function over time due to the progressive nature of their underlying disorder. Patients with previous CVA also appear to have acceptable durability and dislocation risk, but are at high risk of developing heterotopic ossification post-operatively. Patients with Charcot arthropathy or myelodysplasia are at high risk of instability and appear to have limited functional improvement following THA. As a result, the consensus of opinion is that THA is contraindicated in patients with Charcot arthropathy and myelodysplasia.

Not all total hip arthroplasty cases are created equal is a maxim that holds true for both primary and revision scenarios. Complex cases involve patients presenting with compromised bone and/or soft tissue. For primary cases, these include hips with dysplasia, ankylosis, deformed proximal femora, protrusio acetabuli, prior hip fracture with or without failed fixation, previous bony procedures, or neuromuscular conditions. In revision surgery, complex scenarios include cases compromised by bone loss, deterioration of the soft tissues and resulting instability, periprosthetic fracture, leg length discrepancy, infection, and more recently, hypersensitivity reactions. In this interactive session, a moderator and team of experts will discuss strategies for evaluation and management of a variety of challenging hip case scenarios

The elements of my routine pre-op. planning include skin and scar assessment, the limb length (physical exam and radiographic assessments), the socket type, the stem type, and radiographic templating. Blood management is rarely an issue for primary total hips today and I generally do not recommend pre-operative autologous donation. I currently use a low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis for most all patients. All of my patients have pre-operative medical clearance from a hospital intensivist.

A press-fit modular cementless socket is my “workhorse,” although I occasionally use supplemental fixation with spikes (low bone density) or screws (shallow or otherwise deficient hemisphere). Cemented fixation is reserved for hips with radiation necrosis. I use a dual-offset tapered cementless stem in most cases but will use a modular stem in dysplastic, post-traumatic, or severely osteoporotic femurs.

I template every case. My goals are to determine component sizes - “the part inside the bone” and improve the biomechanics of the hip – “the part outside the bone”. Sizing is relatively straight forward. For the socket, I use the teardrop and the superior bony edge as landmarks for size and position. I use a Johnson's lateral view radiograph to assess socket version and anterior osteophytes. With a tapered stem, proximal fit on the AP radiograph is the goal and the stem does not need to be canal filling. For the neck resection, I reference off the lesser trochanter.

Medialisation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) decreases the moment arm for body weight; increasing the femoral off-set lengthens the lever arm for the abductor muscles. These changes in hip biomechanics have a double benefit: a reduction in required abductor forces and lower joint reaction forces. There is accumulating clinical evidence that such favourable alterations in biomechanics can improve clinical outcomes and reduce wear. Higher femoral off-set has been associated with greater hip abduction motion and abductor muscle strength. In two independent studies, higher femoral off-set has been associated with a significant reduction in polyethylene wear.

The traditional arthroplasty goal has been to re-create the off-set of the operated hip. In an analysis of 41 patients with one arthritic hip and one clinically and radiographically normal hip (Rolfe et al., 2006 ORS), we found that the horizontal femoral off-set of the arthritic hip was, on average, 6 mm less than that of the normal, contralateral hip. Considering this, and with medialisation of the COR, is it reasonable to make the femoral off-set a few millimeters greater than that pre-op. With modular trial components, final off-set and limb-length adjustments are made intra-operatively by assessing soft tissue tension, joint stability and range of motion.

Applying these principles in a consecutive series of 40 hips, the hip centre of rotation was medialised by 5.6 mm and the horizontal femoral off-set was increased by an average of 9.5 mm, being larger than the normal, contralateral hip by an average of 5.2 mm. This combination increased the net biomechanical advantage of the diseased hip to an average of 12.5% more than the normal, contralateral hip. The increase in femoral off-set is compensated for by medialising the COR. The average lateralisation of the proximal femur of 3.9 mm did not cause trochanteric bursitis or other pain. When the offset is right, soft tissue tension can be maintained without over-lengthening. In this series, 2.9 mm average lengthening resulted in the reconstructed limb being an average of 1.1 mm shorter than the normal side.

“Like other craftsmen, we have often two ways at least of doing the same job, the success of which is dependent upon the character and the integrity of the man. “Approaches” are for us both physical and psychological: in the case of the hip joint it seems clear that there is more than one good method and that, for the sake of those we train, we should keep an open mind.”

Orientation relative to the abductor musculature and ease of access to the pathology in question should provide the compelling basis for selection of operative approaches to the hip, rather than being based solely on surgeon habit.

Approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty remain the surgeon's choice; posterior approaches provide challenges to cup orientation and anterior approaches offer more difficult access to the proximal femur. Imperatives for a decubitus position posterior approach include pelvic dissociation with need for posterior column plating, removal of retained posterior hardware, and sciatic neurolysis after prior injury. Conversely, indications for a supine anterolateral approach include an isolated acetabular revision with a well-fixed femoral stem and the need for retroperitoneal removal of an intrapelvic acetabular component. Transgluteal approaches inflict potentially the greatest damage to the abductor musculature and are best reserved for primary operative settings; stability of a femoral endoprosthesis is optimised through this approach by preserving the posterior capsular structures. The transtrochanteric approach provides unrivaled exposure to both pelvis and acetabulum from either a supine or decubitus position, and is most helpful for removal of long well-fixed femoral stems whether cemented or cementless.

1.

Patient Factors

The incidence of clinically significant (Brooker stage 3–4) heterotopic ossification (HO) after THA is 3–7%. Risk factors include male gender, old age, a history of HO, Paget's disease, post-traumatic arthritis, osteonecrosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Prophylaxis for high-risk patients consists of 1) radiotherapy given as one dose of 7–8 Gy either pre-operatively (< 4 hours) or post-operatively (within 72 hours) or 2) NSAIDS. Treatment of clinically significant HO includes intensive physiotherapy during the maturation phase of the disease and surgical excision in conjunction with a combination of radiotherapy and indomethacin once the HO has matured. Less invasive surgical approaches may be associated with a reduced incidence of HO.

Hip dislocation is one of the most common causes of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement. To correctly treat dislocation, the causes must first be understood.

Patient factors included age greater than 70, medical co-morbidities, female gender, musculo-ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors and trochanter and education.

Issues related to the surgeon and technique are surgical volume and experience, the surgical approach and repair, adequate restoration of femoral offset and leg length, correct component position, and avoidance of soft tissue or bony impingement.

There are also implant-related factors. Chief among these is the design of the head and neck region. Is the femoral head diameter sufficient, and in concert with the prosthetic neck is there an adequate head-neck ratio? Skirts on longer neck lengths greatly reduce the head-neck ratio and should be avoided if possible. There must be available offset choices in order to restore soft tissue tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed may result in impingement and dislocation.

Late dislocation may result from polyethylene wear, soft tissue destruction, trochanteric or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection.

Understanding the causes of hip dislocation allow prevention in a majority of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification of high-offset patients in whom inadequate restoration of offset will reduce soft tissue tension and abductor efficiency. Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement.

Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur early, and are preventable with proper instructions.

Pain following total hip arthroplasty is a relatively rare event. Several series place the incidence of some degree of pain post THA at approximately 5%.

A systematic approach to determining etiology will direct treatment. Hip pain can be categorised as:

Navigation has been felt to play a role in a number of THA issues. These issues include: 1) Instability-Dislocation; 2) Leg Length discrepancy; 3) Impingement and its impact on range of motion and wear; 3) gait mechanics; and 4) less invasive surgery. Navigation requires that anatomic landmarks be accurately identified. This can be done using images obtained either pre-operatively or intra-operatively (image-based navigation) or using intra-operative techniques for registering the relevant bony anatomy (image-free). The suggested advantages of imaged-based navigation are that is potentially very accurate, makes registering bone landmarks relatively easy and provides information about relevant anatomic landmarks that are not visible during surgery. The disadvantages of image-based navigation are that the acquisition of pre-operative imaging may be inconvenient or cumbersome, the imaging may be associated with increased radiation exposure, the imaging may be associated with additional costs and the pre-operative planning carried out on the imaging may be elaborate and time consuming. The advantages of image-free navigation are that no special pre-operative planning is required, no special imaging is necessary and the intra-operative workflow is consistent with the routine performance of a THA. However, image free registration techniques may be unreliable or inaccurate and the information obtained with image-free registration techniques is limited.

When surgeons proficient in the technique perform image free navigation, positioning of the acetabular component is more accurate and consistent than that achieved using manual techniques. However, this increased accuracy has not been associated with a reduction in hip dislocations and has not had a measurable impact on short-term clinical outcomes. However, navigation is an accurate measurement tool that can be used to validate other computer-based technologies (e.g. patient specific guides). Navigation is also essential to the performance of robotic hip surgery. It is in this latter capacity that navigation may prove most useful to the hip surgeon.

Acetabular component malalignment remains the since greatest root cause for revision THA with malposition of at least ½ of all acetabular component placed using conventional methods1. The use of local anatomical landmarks has repeatedly proven to be an unreliable. The reason for this is that the position of local anatomical landmarks varies widely from one patient to another. Another alternative is to simply place acetabular components in a supine position. Unfortunately, cups placed in the supine position under fluoroscopy had the highest incidence of cup malposition in the Callanan study. This is because acetabular anteversion is critically important and pelvic tilt during surgery in the supine position is unknown, uncontrolled, and not correlated with post-operative pelvic tilt.

Image-free surgical navigation can be useful for cup alignment in the absence of pelvic deformity. Image-based surgical navigation can be effective for cup alignment in the presence or absence of pelvic deformity. Unfortunately, while these technologies have been available for a decade, few surgeons employ these technologies. This is likely due to added time, complexity, and expense. Current robotic technology embodies all of these limitations in an even more extreme form.

The HipSextant is a smart mechanical instrument system was developed to quickly and easily achieve accurate cup alignment. The system is image based (CT or MR) and can handle extreme asymmetry and deformity. The instrument docks on a patient-specific basis with 3 legs: one through the incision behind the posterior rim, one percutaneously on the lateral side of the ASIS, and a third percutaneously on the surface of the ilium. A direction indicator on the top of the instrument points in the desired cup orientation. Since the planning is provided, the surgeon needs to only review and adjust the plan as desired. Further the system is robust, showing greater accuracy than image-based traditional navigation. Finally, the system takes typically only 3 minutes to use, making it practical for busy practices and hospitals.

1.

Role of enabling technologies in THA: Setting the stage

90% of young patients that develop DJD of the hip have an underlying structural problem, most frequently hip dysplasia. The structural problem results in decreased contact area, increased contact stresses about the anterior and lateral acetabulum and femoral head and results in labral pathology, early cartilage damage and if left untreated leads to end stage hip arthritis.

Despite the optimism of alternative bearing surfaces and highly cross linked polyethylene, THA should still be discouraged in young patients. Many patients with symptomatic hip dysplasia in the absence of arthritis will benefit from joint preservation. The goal of treatment should be restoration of anatomy as close to normal as possible. The Bernese PAO is the preferred technique in many centres in North America and Europe because of its balance between minimal exposure, complications, and ability to provide optimal correction. The ideal patient for a PAO is young, has no arthritis, is not obese (BMI <30) and has poorly covered femoral head where congruency is possible. A PAO has advantages over other osteotomies and include: 1)

Performed through one incision without violation of the abductors

The results of the osteotomy have been encouraging with up to 60% survivorship free from total hip arthroplasty at 20 years. Most studies show improvement in pain and function, improvement in radiographic coverage of the femoral head with no improvement in range of motion. Treatment should be individualised to each patient based on radiographic findings, age and cartilage status and restoration of anatomy as close to normal as possible should be the ideal treatment, most commonly in the form of a periacetabular osteotomy.

Femoroacetabular impingement is defined as abnormal abutment between the femoral head, or the femoral head-neck junction, and the acetabulum. It is now established that FAI is a major etiological factor in the development of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip.

FAI is increasingly recognized as a cause of hip pain in young active individuals. Clinical features of FAI include pain in the groin but this may also be felt in the gluteal region, trochanteric region, or in the thigh. Symptoms most commonly begin as an intermittent discomfort, often during or following periods of repetitive hip motion e.g. running, walking, progressing to more constant and intense pain. Stiffness is common, with reductions in the range of hip flexion, and internal rotation in particular. Patients may also complain of clicking, popping, or snapping sensations in the affected hip.

Operative treatment of FAI is principally aimed at removing cam lesions and increasing femoral head-neck offset (osteochondroplasty), and treating associated soft tissue lesions such as labral tears. Acetabular recession with labral reattachment is increasingly used for pincers lesions but great care is needed to ensure that the overall coverage of the hip is not reduced. As proficiency with arthroscopic techniques has improved, arthroscopic osteochondroplasty and labral debridement/repair has become increasingly popular for the treatment for FAI, with promising functional results in a range of studies.

150 consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for CAM type FAI with minimum 1 year follow up were prospectively studied. Patient satisfaction, non-arthritic hip score, re-operations and conversion to arthroplasty were analysed.

There were a total of 90 males and 60 females. The average age group was 32 years (27 to 46 years). All patients underwent osteoplasty of the CAM lesion and stabilisation/ repair of the labral tears. A comparison of pre procedure non arthritic hip scores with the scores at latest follow up (minimum 1 year, maximum 3 years) showed a significant improvement (56 vs 86; p <0.01). There were 2 re operations for unresolved symptoms and 1 conversion to arthroplasty for continued pain associated with significant loss of articular cartilage. Perineal numbness was noted in 9 patients all of which resolved. No other major complications were noted in this series. Hip impingement symptoms resolved in all cases and a good (20 %) to excellent (75%) outcome was reported.

Arthroscopic management of CAM type FAI is associated with subjective and objective improvement in hip function at early follow up. Longer follow-up is necessary to analyse the ability of this procedure to arrest progression of degenerative hip disease.

Clearly uncemented hip stems are becoming more popular. They are working relatively well and avoiding the step of cementation is easier and much quicker. However, this speaker feels that well designed femoral stems with 25–30 years of proven successful fixation are perfectly good for elderly patients with 10, 15, and 20 year life expectancies. They are good for several reasons. They seal off bleeding from the femur essentially completely—particularly helpful in high anticoagulation patients. Also, addition of antibiotic cement would be expected to have a lower infection rate, and cases of gross osteopenia can be less likely to have fractures or undesired subsidence.

There are a few basic points which can make a big difference in the quality of hip stem cementation. These points are: (1) After ordinary broaching, loose, mechanically incompetent bone needs to be removed. This is well done with canal brushes and large angled curettes. (2) The canal must be plugged distally a centimeter or two beyond the tip of the femoral prosthesis. (3) The femoral cavity needs to be as dry as possible at the time of cement introduction. This is one of the more difficult tasks to achieve perfectly. First is pulse lavage with an intramedullary nozzle. Next, I use epinephrine soaked sponges pulled completely out to length and introduced to fill the cavity completely—filling retrograde and packing tightly. Shortly before the cement is to be introduced, the epi sponges are changed to dry ones with the same type of firm, retrograde filling. The canal is commonly dried twice occasionally three times.

Cement introduction: (1) A cement gun with long intramedullary nozzle is mandatory. (2) The cement must not be too runny, i.e. of too low a viscosity. You will have more trouble maintaining pressurisation with liquid runny cement, and you risk bleeding from the bone into the cement cavity significantly compromising the cementation. (3) The cement must be introduced retrograde with complete filling i.e. no voids, and not running out of cement to inject before the tip of the nozzle has reached the introitus, the entry point to the femoral cavity. Otherwise you wind up pulling out the nozzle itself out, leaving a void. (4) “Pressurisers,” that is, almost all that I have seen, do not really facilitate pressurisation. Once the canal is completely full with cement and the cement is getting stiffer, pressurisation by pushing at the introitus using your thumb over a lap pad creates tremendous pressurisation that can push cement beyond most cement plugs!

Introducing the femoral component: (1) Last, the femoral component is introduced rather slowly so that one maintains constant pressurisation by virtue of the volume displacement as the component goes to its proper level. Ideally the femoral component reaches its proper level just before the cement is really hard. You really can do this as you get the component 0.5 to1.0 cm. from the final level and impact it slowly as the cement comes to nearly complete hardness.

The two worst things you can do— 1.

Have the prosthesis reach its desired level with the cement relatively runny and have the bone bleed into the cement and degrade the quality of the cement interdigitation.

Consistent, optimum cementation of the femoral component is difficult, but achievable and worth it! You have a component with good stress transfer, no undesired proximal stress shielding like some porous implants have; less bleeding from the canal; good 20+ year fixation, etc., etc.

Unexplained pain after hip arthroplasty is frustrating for patients and surgeons. The purpose of this study was 1. to describe the use of hip arthroscopy in management of the painful hip arthroplasty, 2. to critically evaluate the outcomes these patients, and 3. to help define indications for hip arthroscopy in this setting. We retrospectively reviewed 14 patients (16 hips) who underwent hip arthroscopy after joint replacement. One patient had suspected septic arthritis despite negative aspiration and one had known septic arthritis but was not a candidate for open arthrotomy; two had intra-articular migration of hardware. The remaining 10 patients (11 hips) had persistent pain despite negative diagnostic studies. The two patients (two hips) with infection were successfully treated with arthroscopic lavage and debridement plus intravenous antibiotics. Intra-articular metal fragments and a loose acetabular screw were successfully removed in two patients (three hips). Findings in remaining the 11 hips included a loose acetabular component (one); corrosion at the head-neck junction of a metal-on-metal articulation (one); soft tissue-scar impingement at the head cup interface (four); synovitis with associated scar tissue (four); and capsular scarring with adhesions (one). Arthroscopy represented a successful treatment or directly led to a successful treatment in 12 of 16 hips. We observed no complications as a result of the arthroscopy. Arthroscopy may be of value in selected patients

There are several clinical scenarios to consider cementing an acetabular liner into a secure cementless shell including cases of: 1) inadequate capturing mechanism, 2) damaged locking mechanisms, 3) unavailability of the mating polyethylene liner, 4) instability following debridement for wear, 5) instability at the time of femoral side revision, and 6) recurrent dislocation. The last two situations are common scenarios for cementing a constrained liner into a secure shell.

Technique includes: 1) scoring the shell in cases with no screw holes or polished inner shells, 2) scoring the acetabular liner in a “spider web” pattern, 3) pressurising cement into the shell, and 4) inserting a liner that allows 2 millimeters of cement mantle.

Results of Cementing Constrained Liner Into Secure Cementless Shell A.

Callaghan et al. JBJS 2004

Results of Cementing Non-Constrained Liners Into Secure Cementless Shell A.

Beaule et al. JBJS 2004

A trochanteric osteotomy offers extensile exposure of the hip on both the acetabular and femoral sides. The classical trochanteric osteotomy which is transverse and involved a release of the vastus lateralis muscles is complicated by a significant incidence of trochanteric nonunion and more importantly, trochanteric migration. The trochanteric slide was designed to avoid trochanteric migration by keeping the trochanteric fragment in continuity with the abductors and the vastus lateralis. Even if there was a trochanteric nonunion, a trochanteric migration was prevented by continuity of muscles enclosing the greater trochanter in a sling of muscle.

When we first started doing the trochanteric slide, we used the technique originally described which involved starting with the posterior approach to take down the external rotators and the posterior capsule, and then proceeding with the trochanteric osteotomy. We found that our incidence of posterior dislocation increased to 15%. We therefore decided that we would attempt to do this operation but try to preserve the external rotators and the posterior capsule so they remained in situ attached to the main body of the femur, so that the trochanteric osteotomy was carried out just anterior to these muscles and posterior capsule. As a result of this our dislocation rate went from 15% to 3%.

This exposure provides an extensile exposure of the pelvis and femur. If femoral component removal is anticipated to be difficult, then we use exactly the same approach but we extend the trochanteric fragment down as in an extended trochanteric osteotomy.

Indications for removal of well-fixed cementless femoral components include infection, improper femoral height/offset/anteversion, and fracture. More recently, removal of well-fixed but recalled femoral components that are associated with adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) has created a new indication for this procedure. The goal in all cases is to preserve bone stock and soft-tissue attachments to the greatest extent possible during implant removal. The strategy for implant removal depends to a large extent on the type of implant to be removed. Implants with limited proximal fixation can often be removed from the top using narrow osteotomes. Implants with more extensive fixation typically require more extensive exposure. When performing an extended trochanteric osteotomy, plan for the bone flap length based on measurement from the tip of the greater trochanter. Instead of devascularising the lateral bone flap, be sure to preserve the quadriceps attachment to the bone flap, exposing the lateral femur only where the transverse and posterior osteotomies are planned. The anterior osteotomy can be performed using a dotted line of osteotomes trans-muscularly as described by Heinz Wagner. Placement of a prophylactic cerclage below the osteotomy is prudent. Most importantly, if the need for a transfemoral exposure is likely, it should be performed primarily so that the posterior capsule and short rotators can be preserved. There is no need to perform a full posterior exposure and then to secondarily perform a transfemoral exposure since the former is unnecessary if the latter is performed. Discrete, limited fixation of the lateral bone flap proximally and distally should be performed to prevent strangulation of the living bone flap during the refixation process. The transfemoral technique can be applied not only to removal of well-fixed devices but also for conversion from hip fusion and for Z-shortening of the femur during Crowe 4 reconstruction instead of using a transverse osteotomy and intercalary shortening.

Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), such as so-called pseudotumours associated with metal-metal bearings, can also occur secondary to corrosion products from modular tapers where at least one side is composed of cobalt alloy. In 1988, Svensson et al. reported a fulminant soft-tissue pseudotumour following a cementless, metal-on-polyethylene total hip. This case had all of the features of ALTR that were subsequently observed in association with contemporary large diameter metal-metal bearings, having the same histological characteristics that Willert and colleagues termed ALVAL in 2005.

There is a documented increased risk of femoral taper corrosion in association with larger diameter (>32 mm) metal-metal bearings. There may be a generic increase in the risk of taper corrosion with larger diameter bearings, regardless of acetabular bearing type. Other variables include the design and manufacturing tolerances of the taper and head, the stiffness of the neck, implantation time, and possibly in vivo assembly. Head and neck moment arm and neck length have not been demonstrated to be independent risk factors for taper corrosion or fretting. Retrieval analyses indicate that fretting and corrosion tend to be higher on the head than on the stem. ALTR has similarly been described in association with corrosion of the modular neck-stem junction. Taper corrosion is the probable explanation for elevated ion levels and ALTR in association with well-positioned metal-metal total hip bearings and low bearing wear. Whole blood or serum metal levels are elevated with a greater elevation of cobalt compared to chromium. Ion analyses are now relatively accessible and reliable and should be obtained in the evaluation of a painful total hip without an obvious cause. Cross-sectional imaging, such as a MARS MRI scan, can demonstrate associated changes in the periprosthetic tissues and secure the diagnosis.

Treatment recommendations are similar to those established for hips with metal-metal bearings and ALTR. Removal of the modular cobalt alloy head and/or neck component is recommended. At this time, there are no established criteria for the degree of “acceptable” femoral taper damage. The dilemma faced by the revising surgeon is whether to expose the patient to the potential morbidity associated with revision of a well-fixed femoral stem, particularly a distally-fixed, extensively porous-coated stem, in the setting of mild-to-moderate fretting and corrosion of the femoral taper. Several manufacturers offer ceramic heads with a titanium alloy taper sleeve inside the head specifically for mating to previously used femoral tapers. It is not recommended to put a ceramic head taper directly onto a used femoral taper. Surface damage of the used femoral taper can create high localised stresses in the ceramic head and predispose to head fracture. The same principles can be applied to corrosion of a stem-neck taper. If the modular neck is made of cobalt alloy, it is preferable to exchange it for one made of titanium alloy (if available). Again, there are no established criteria for the degree of “acceptable” femoral taper damage. The paucity of reported experience with such revisions inhibits further comment at this time.

It is prudent to be suspicious of “taperosis” considering that the majority of heads used over the past 5 years are cobalt alloy and >36 mm in diameter, many contemporary stems have narrower, and hence more flexible necks, some tapers are smaller (shorter), more variable in vivo assembly secondary to “minimally invasive” surgical techniques, and the risk of taper corrosion increases with time in situ. Additional studies are needed to determine the incidence of clinically significant taper corrosion. There are more than 30 different head-stem tapers worldwide and the incidence of clinically significant taper corrosion is likely variable for different head-stem combinations. Similar to ALTR that occur with metal-metal bearings, some cases of ALTR secondary to taper corrosion may be asymptomatic.

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on the loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration by incorporating and remodeling the allograft bone of the host skeleton. Historically, this was first performed and described in Exeter in 1987.

Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Nowadays our main indication is the Paprosky Type IIIb and Type IV. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts.

Technical steps include: –

removal of failed stem and all cement rests

The cement mantle is of importance as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft while sealing the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favourable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to coldflow within the cement mantle, however, it could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm.

Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow-up has been reported by the Exeter group at over 90%. While survivorship for revision defined as aseptic loosening is even greater at above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long-term follow-up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years and 99% with the endpoint aseptic loosening.

Impaction grafting is technically more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. However, it enables a reliable restoration of bone stock.

Femoral components in total hip replacements fail in well-known ways. There is vertical sink, posterior rotation and pivot, either distal or mid-stem. In order to sink, the stem moves into valgus and then slides down the inside of the calcar. It does not cut through the calcar.

To prevent sink and pivot, a canal filling stem is required. Canal fill prevents the stem from moving into valgus and, therefore, it will not sink. Two centimeters with complete canal fill is adequate in a primary stem. A long stem will give longer canal fill in a revision. Sharp distal flutes will prevent rotation. The distal end of the stem should be polished. One is looking for a distal stability, not distal fixation.

If the isthmus is intact, a primary stem can be used. If the isthmus is damaged, a long stem is necessary. If the calcar is intact, a primary neck is adequate. If the calcar is missing down to the level of the lesser trochanter, a calcar replacement neck is required. If there is more than 70 millimeters of completely missing proximal femur, a structural allograft is required.

If the proximal femur is damaged, the ability to place a sleeve or collar to seek the best bone available independently of the stem version is very helpful.

No matter how poor the proximal bone quality is, it can be supplemented by cerclage wires. The implant will sink only if the cerclage wires break.

The advantage of proximal fixation is that loading the proximal femur speeds recovery. The huge disadvantage of distal fixation is removal of the implant should it become necessary.

My long term results for the S-ROM stem used in revision are now out over 20 years. There were 119 primary stems with a minimum follow up of 5 years with no revisions for aseptic loosening.

There were 262 long stems used. Nine (3.7%) underwent aseptic loosening. Most of these were due to technical errors due to my inexperience in the learning process of revision surgery. Four were dependent on strut-grafts and should have been treated with structural allografts.

There were seven cases with structural allografts. Three were revised. Again, these were largely from problems arising from inexperience.

I believe proximal modularity with distal stability allows the vast majority of revision cases to be treated with proximal fixation.

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years.

Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Conventional wisdom holds that aseptic failure of proximal ingrowth femoral stems should be addressed by revision to a longer femoral stem dependent upon more distal fixation. This is a reliable and time-honoured strategy with a high likelihood of success provided secure initial fixation of the revision stem is obtained. Yet, stems reliant upon more distal diaphyseal fixation are accompanied by a greater risk of physiologic thigh pain attributable to the differential in flexural stiffness of the femoral shaft compared with the prosthetic stem.

Contemporary proximal ingrowth femoral stems have become the most popular device used in total hip arthroplasty and are traditionally reserved for primary procedures. Nevertheless, the flat tapered design offers a tight fit between the medial and lateral endosteal cortices of the femur, unimpeded by an increasing anteroposterior dimension of the stem, and provides a secure geometrical block to rotational movement of the stem. In instances when the primary stem is not fit to the endosteal cortex on the anteroposterior radiograph, such as with the Corail or SROM devices, the opportunity may exist for revision with a flat tapered proximal ingrowth stem that is upsized to abut the endosteal femoral cortex. Such a strategy preserves the diaphyseal femur for subsequent revision in these typically young patients and avoids the issue of thigh pain in this active population. Likewise, revision of a well-fixed long stem that is associated with unrelenting thigh pain may be similarly accomplished by revision to a flat proximal ingrowth stem provided the integrity of the upper femur can be maintained during the revision. A prophylactic cerclage wire around the proximal femur is a helpful adjunct when using flat tapered proximal ingrowth stems in the revision setting.

The unacceptable failure rate of cemented femoral revisions led to many different cementless femoral designs employing fixation in the damaged proximal femur with biological coatings limited to this area. The results of these devices were uniformly poor and were abandoned for the most part by the mid 1990's.

Fully porous coated devices employing distal fixation in the diaphysis emerged as the gold standard for revisions with several authors reporting greater than 90% success rate at 8–10 years of follow-up. Surgical techniques and ease of insertion improved with the introduction of the extended trochanteric osteotomy as well as curved, long, fully porous coated stems with diameters up to 23 mm. The limits of these stems were stretched to include any stem diameter in which even 1–2 cm of diaphyseal contact could be achieved. When diaphyseal fixation was not possible (Type IV), the alternatives were either impaction grafting or allograft prosthetic composite (APC).

As the results of fully porous coated stems were very carefully scrutinised, it became apparent that certain types of bone loss did not yield the most satisfactory results both clinically and radiographically.

When less than 4 cm of diaphyseal press fit (Type IIIB) was achieved, mechanical failure rate (MFR) was over 25%. It also became apparent that even when there was 4–6 cm. diaphyseal contact (Type IIIA), and the stem diameter was 18 mm or greater, post-op pain and function scores were significantly less than those with smaller diameter stems. This was probably due to poorer quality bone.

Many of these Type IIIA and Type IIIB femurs had severe proximal torsional remodeling leading to marked distortion of anteversion. This made judging the amount of anteversion to apply to the stem at the time of insertion very difficult, leading to higher rates of dislocation. These distortions were not present in Type I and Type II femurs.

This chain of events which was a combination of minimal diaphyseal fixation, excessively stiff stems and higher dislocation rates led to the conversion to modular type stems when these conditions existed.

For the past 8 years, low modulus taper stems of the Wagner design have been used for almost all Type IIIA and Type IIIB bone defects. The taper design with fluted splines allows for fixation when there is less than 2 cm of diaphysis.

The results in these femurs even with diameters of up to 26 mm have led to very low M.F.R.'s and significantly less thigh pain. Independent anteversion adjustment is also a hug advantage in these modular stems. Similar success rates, albeit with less follow-up, have been noted in Type IV femurs.

Polyethylene and femoral head exchange for wear or osteolysis is a common operation. The difficulty lies in the facts that wear and osteolysis are difficult to measure, wear does not always correlate with osteolysis, catastrophic failure (wear through, loosening, or fracture) is difficult to predict, and these problems are usually asymptomatic.

I currently recommend this procedure when complete wear through of the polyethylene is present or impending, when the patient has obvious wear and symptoms, or if there is a rapidly enlarging osteolytic lesion.

The surgical goals focus on management of debris generation and management of the osteolytic lesion. A third goal becomes avoidance of the know complications of this procedure. Management of debris generation basically involves modernising the head and polyethylene. Management of the osteolytic lesion includes debridement and when possible grafting. By far the most common complication after this procedure is dislocation. Prevention of dislocation should be accomplished by patient education, use of larger heads when possible, and capsular repair.

Prerequisites to perform this procedure are a replacement liner of adequate thickness that can be locked or cemented in place. The acetabular component must be stable. Lastly the component must be properly oriented to minimise both wear and dislocation.

Acetabular revision surgery can be complex and challenging. The technique selected depends upon the amount of bone deficiency. One of the most useful ways to assess remaining bone stock has been described by Paprosky, based on the location and severity of bone loss, and the likelihood of obtaining a stable construct with a hemispherical cup.

In almost all cases of acetabular revision, the remaining bone is in fact capable of supporting a hemispherical socket, as long as details of technique are followed. The implant is larger than the native acetabulum and the removed socket by several sizes, and may approach quite large proportions, hence the term “Jumbo Cup”. The principle is to gradually enlarge the acetabulum with hemispherical reamers, taking care to protect the posterior and superior bone, at the expense of the less crucial anterior and inferior bone.

As reaming proceeds, there comes a point where the reamer is stable within the acetabulum. High areas have been reamed down, and remaining cavitary defects are then back-filled with autogenous reamings or allograft cancellous chips. This is then re-reamed in reverse to distribute the graft into the defects. A large or “Jumbo” cup, 2–3 mm larger than the last reamer, is then impacted into place, and supplemented with screws.

In many cases, the anterior lip, and to a lesser extent the medial wall, may be sacrificed to obtain stability, without compromising long-term results.

The principles of acetabular reconstruction include the creation of a stable acetabular bed, secure prosthetic fixation with freedom of orientation, bony reconstitution, and the restoration of a normal hip centre of rotation with acceptable biomechanics.

Acetabular impaction grafting, particularly with cemented implants, has been shown to be a reliable means of acetabular revision. Whilst our practice is heavily weighted towards cementless revision of the acetabulum with impaction grafting, there is a large body of evidence from Tom Slooff and his successors that cemented revision with impaction grafting undertaken with strict attention to technical detail is associated with excellent long terms results in all ages and across a number of underlying pathologies including dysplasia and rheumatoid arthritis.

We use revision to a cementless hemispherical porous-coated acetabular cup for most isolated cavitary or segmental defects and for many combined deficiencies. Morsellised allograft is packed in using chips of varied size and a combination of impaction and reverse reaming is used in order to create a hemisphere. There is increasing evidence for the use of synthetic grafts, usually mixed with allograft, in this setting. The reconstruction relies on the ability to achieve biological fixation of the component to the underlying host bone. This requires intimate host bone contact, and rigid implant stability. It is important to achieve host bone contact in a least part of the dome and posterior column – when this is possible, and particularly when there is a good rim fit, we have not found it absolutely necessary to have contact with host bone over 50% of the surface.

Once the decision to attempt a cementless reconstruction is made, hemispherical reamers are used to prepare the acetabular cavity. Sequentially larger reamers are used until there is three-point contact with the ilium, ischium and pubis. Acetabular reaming should be performed in the desired orientation of the final implant, with approximately 200 of anteversion and 400 of abduction (or lateral opening). Removing residual posterior column bone should be avoided. Reaming to bleeding bone is desirable. Morsellised allograft is inserted and packed and/or reverse reamed into any cavitary defects. This method can also be applied to medial wall uncontained defects by placing the graft onto the medial membrane or obturator internus muscle, and gently packing it down before inserting the cementless acetabular component. Either the reamer heads or trial cups can be used to trial prior to choosing and inserting the definitive implant. The fixation is augmented with screws in all cases. Incorporation of the graft may be helped by the use of autologous bone marrow.

Cementless acetabular components with impaction grafting should not be used when the host biology does not allow for stability or for bone ingrowth. This includes the severely osteopenic pelvis, pelvic osteonecrosis after irradiation, tumours, and metabolic bone disorders. They should also not be used in the presence of pelvic discontinuity unless the structure of the pelvic ring has been restored with a plate, or specialised materials/porous metals are used.

The challenge of reconstituting the acetabulum depends on the degree and type of bone loss. The principles of maximising host bone-implant contact and implant stability have borne fruit in our experience with cementless revision. The advantages of bone grafting in acetabular reconstruction include the ability to restore bone stock, to rebuild a normal hip center and hip biomechanics and to increase bone stock for future revisions.

In North America, and for the most part globally, a cementless acetabular component with adjuvant screw fixation is the preferred technique for revision total hip arthroplasty.

However, there are situations that involve massive pelvic bone loss that preclude the use of a cementless cup alone.

Options include: i)

Enhanced fixation components and augments

Complex acetabular revisions present the arthroplasty surgeon with challenges that require an approach with more than one solution for all scenarios. While structural allografts have recently fallen out of favour with the increasing use of enhanced fixation components, there would still appear to be a role in the case in which bone stock restoration is a primary goal. The role of bone graft substitutes remains unclear, with supportive basic science data, but limited clinical experience to date. An algorithm will be discussed to assist in prioritising the multiple goals of acetabular reconstruction and one stock restoration.

The indications for cementless acetabular fixation have been broadened because our data supports the use of trabecular metal cups even when there's limited bleeding host bone contact. Trabecular metal augments have allowed us to use cementless cups when there is segmental loss of bone.

Surgical Technique:

The acetabular bed is prepared. If there is less medial bone stock than 2 mm, then morsellised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilisation, then a trabecular metal cup is indicated.

Trabecular augments are used if the trabecular cup trial is not stable, or if it is uncovered by 40% or more.

The conventional augments come in different sizes to accommodate the diameter of the cup and the size of the defect. Larger defects are addressed with anterior and posterior column augments, and superior defects with figure of seven augments. Augments are fixed with at least two screws.

The interface between the cup and the augments should be stable, but some surgeons place a very thin layer of cement between the augment and cup so micromotion does not occur while ingrowth is occurring.

We have used trabecular metal augments in 46 acetabular revisions in conjunction with a TM cup. Thirty-four cases have at least 2 years follow-up with an average of 64.5 months. There has been 4 cup loosenings with 3 re-revisions.

Pelvic discontinuity remains one of the most difficult reconstructive challenges during acetabular revision. Bony defects are extremely variable and remaining bone quality may be extremely poor. Careful pre-operative imaging with plain radiographs, oblique views, and CT scanning is recommended to improve understanding of the remaining bone stock. It is wise to have several options available intra-operatively including metal augments, jumbo cups, and cages. Various treatment options have been used with variable success. The principles of management include restoration of acetabular stability by “connecting” the ilium to the ischium, and by (hopefully) allowing some bony ingrowth into a porous surface to allow longer-term construct stability. Posterior column plates can be useful to stabilise the pelvis, and can supplement a trabecular metal uncemented acetabular component. Screws into the dome and into the ischium are used to span the discontinuity. More severe defects may require so-called “cup-cage” constructs or trabecular metal augmentation distraction techniques. The most severe defects typically necessitate custom triflange components. Triflange constructs allow broad based contact with remaining bone stock, and can span surprisingly large defects. Recent cost analyses have shown that custom triflange constructs are comparable to cup-cage-augment reconstructions. The results of these various solutions to manage pelvic discontinuity is extremely variable, however, it is fair to conclude that constructs that allow some bony ingrowth have demonstrated improved survivorship when compared to historical treatments such as bulk allografts protected by cages. The author prefers a posterior column plate and a trabecular metal cup for simple discontinuities, a cup-cage for larger defects, and a custom triflange for the most severe defects. Pre-operative imaging is critical to guide this decision-making, and careful attention to detail is important to obtain a stable, durable construct.

1.

Reconstruction of Failed Hip Abductors following THA-A New Surgical Technique using Graft Jacket Matrix

The two-staged exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has become the “gold standard” worldwide. However, based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement by Prof. Buchholz in the 1970s, the ENDO-Klinik followed a distinct one staged exchange for PJI in over 85% of all our infected cases until today. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for the PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence, that a two-staged procedure has a clearly higher success rate than a one-staged approach.

A cemented one-stage exchange offers certain potential advantages, mainly the need for only one operative procedure resulting in reduced antibiotic administration, hospitalisation time, and relative overall costs. In order to fulfill a one-staged approach which results in the above described potential success, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details, which need to be meticulously respected. The absolute mandatory infrastructural requirement is a clear knowledge of the infecting organism in combination with a distinct patient specific plan recommended by an experienced microbiologist, for the local antibiotics in the bone cement and the systemic antibiotics, administered to the patient post-operatively. This requires a mandatory pre-operative diagnostic test based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of the bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogramm is essential, to identify the specific antibiotics loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high topic antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side.

Contraindications for a one staged exchange include:

Failure of > 2 previous one-staged procedures

The surgical success relies not only on the complete removal of all foreign material (including cement and restrictors), but also on the required aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. The mixing of antibiotics into the cement must fulfill the following criteria: Appropriate antibiogramm, adequate elusion characteristics, bactericidal (exception clindamycin), powder form (never use liquid AB), maximum addition of 10%/PMMA powder. Current principles of modern cementing techniques should be applied. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually followed for only 10–14 days (exception: streptococci).

Persistence or recurrence of infection remains the most relevant complication in the one-staged technique. As failure rates with a two staged exchange have been described between 9% and 20% in non-resistant bacteria, the ENDO-Klinik data shows comparative results after 8 to10 years of follow-up.

In summary a cemented one-stage exchange offers various advantages. Mainly the need for only one operation, shorter hospitalisation, reduced systemic antibiotics, lower overall cost and a relatively high patient satisfaction rate. However, a well-defined pre-operative planning regime including an experienced surgeons team and microbiologist are absolutely mandatory for its overall success.

A “two-stage exchange” remains the gold standard for treatment of the infected THA in North America. Although there is interest in “one-stage exchange” this technique is predicated on the use of fixation of the revision implants with antibiotic loaded cement, which is not as popular in North America.

Diagnosis is critical and in general consists of a screening serum ESR and CRP followed by selective aspiration if the above are abnormal and/or if the clinical history is suspicious. The aspirated fluid is sent for a synovial fluid WBC (cut-off approximately 3,000 WBC/μL), differential (cut-off 80% PMN) and culture.

The basic tenets of treatment include:

Thorough debridement of all infected appearing cement and all foreign material

Antibiotic spacers can be “articulating” or “static”. Potential advantages of an articulating spacer include greater patient comfort and an easier approach at the second stage exchange as leg length and soft tissue tension is maintained. However, these spacers are oftentimes more costly and can dislocate. May not be appropriate in cases where there is severe bone loss that cannot support partial weight bearing or if the abductors are compromised (higher risk of dislocation).

The first stage is followed by approximately 6 weeks of organism specific IV antibiotics. An interdisciplinary approach with an infectious disease specialist, internal medicine and a nutritionist optimises outcomes.

Our protocol then includes weekly ESR and CRP to monitor their trend. These labs are re-checked two weeks after cessation of antibiotics to ensure the trend has not changed. We have found that while the ESR and CRP are significantly lower than prior to the 1st stage, they often times DO NOT normalise and there is no specific cut-off value that predicts persistent infection. An intra-operative aspiration for synovial fluid WBC count and differential is obtained intra-operatively (cut-off values of approximately 3,000 WBC/μl and 80% PMN) and are the best tests to identify persistent infection.

The failure of any joint arthroplasty secondary to infection is devastating to both patient and surgeon. Eradication of infection is the primary treatment objective. Classic teaching has called for removal of all prosthetic components, thorough soft tissue and bone debridement and either immediate or delayed reimplantation with an interim antibiotic polymethylmethacrylate laden spacer. The presence of a residual biofilm on implants is a rationale for component removal. Several sophisticated removal systems have been developed for the acetabulum which facilitate component removal with minimal to no bone loss. However, such systems do not exist for the femoral component. Removal of well-fixed femoral components remains a significant challenge frequently requiring extensive osteotomies which can result in bone loss and compromise of future femoral component fixation. Therefore, it would seem attractive to leave a well fixed femoral component in situ and remove only the acetabular component, perform a thorough debridement, place an antibiotic laden polymethylmethacrylate spacer within the acetabulum and perform a delayed reimplantation. A retrospective analysis of our practice from 2000 to 2010 revealed nineteen patients treated with a partial radical debridement and delayed reimplantation with a minimum of two year follow-up. There were no patient deaths within 90 days. Follow-up averaged 3.9 years. Three patients expired during the study period at an average of 3.5 years post-operative. Two patients, both multiply revised with prior 2-stage treatment of infection, failed secondary to recurrence of infection at an average of 3.3 years. Our results suggest that partial radical debridement represents an acceptable option for patients with infected THA. We have employed this technique when it was deemed that removal of the femoral component would require extensive osteotomy resulting in significant bone loss and compromise of future femoral reconstruction. It has been successful 89% of the time. We are aware that further study is required and we remain cautiously optimistic regarding this treatment modality.

Infection is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty. Treatment is difficult, often requiring multiple surgical procedures, prolonged hospitalisation, and long-term intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Failure rates are high for resistant organisms and mixed-flora infections, and antibiotic-loaded cement spacers deliver antibiotics for only a few days and can harbor resistant bacteria on the surface. We have adopted a direct-exchange method with antibiotics infused directly into the joint using Hickman catheters to achieve extremely high levels of intra-articular (IA) antibiotics for six weeks. Hickman catheters have a fibrous cuff that allows soft-tissue ingrowth and seals the surface of the tube to prevent contamination of the joint by tracking along the catheter. Two catheters are inserted to ensure that at least one will be functional for six weeks.

The safety and efficacy of this protocol was evaluated in patients undergoing primary or revision TKA by measuring joint and serum levels of vancomycin following IV administration (as a prophylactic) and IA administration (as a treatment for infected TKA), and comparing the levels with each method. Therapeutic levels of vancomycin were present in the knee following IV or IA administration, but much higher levels were possible with IA administration. Vancomycin achieved therapeutic levels in the synovial fluid of the knee with IV administration, but clearance from the knee was rapid, suggesting that the synovial fluid concentration may be sub-therapeutic for hours before the next IV dose is given. In contrast, IA delivery of vancomycin resulted in peak levels that were many orders of magnitude higher, and trough levels remained therapeutic for 24 hours in both the joint space and in the serum (trough levels of 8.4 and 4.2 μg/mL, respectively). The elimination constant (half-life) of IA-administered vancomycin was determined to be 3.06 hours.

This protocol was used in 18 knees (18 patients) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treated between January 2001 and January 2007 with one-stage revision that included debridement, uncemented revision of total knee components, and IA infusion of 500 mg vancomycin via Hickman catheter once or twice daily for 6 weeks. No IV antibiotics were used after the first 24 hours. Serum vancomycin levels were monitored to maintain levels between 3 and 10 μg/mL. Mean serum vancomycin peak concentration was 6±2 μg/mL and the mean serum vancomycin trough concentration was 3±1 μg/mL at 2 weeks post-operative. Knee synovial fluid peak and trough vancomycin levels were measured in two knees. Synovial fluid peak concentrations were 10,233 μg/mL and 20,167 μg/mL and trough concentrations were 724 μg/mL and 543μg/mL, respectively. Minimum follow-up was 27 months (range, 27–75 months). Mean follow-up was 62 months, (range, 27–96 months). At 2-year follow-up, mean Knee Society score was 83±9. No radiographic evidence of implant migration has occurred. One knee reinfected with MRSA and was reoperated at 5 months. A necrotic bone segment was found, the knee was debrided and revised, and the antibiotic infusion protocol was readministered. The knee remained free of infection at 42 months post-operatively.

Directly infusing antibiotics into the infected area maintains a high local concentration level while minimising systemic toxicity. This method avoids the use of antibiotic-loaded cement and the potential for growth of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. These findings support single-stage revision in cases treated with cementless revision and IA antibiotics.

Obtaining primary wound healing in Total Joint Arthroplasty (TJA) is essential to a good result. Wound healing problems can occur and the consequences can be devastating to the patient and to the surgeon. Determination of the host healing capacity can be useful in predicting complications. Cierney and Mader classified patients as Type A: no healing compromises and Type B: systemic or local healing compromises factors present. Local factors include traumatic arthritis with multiple previous incisions, extensive scarring, lymphedema, poor vascular perfusion, and excessive local adipose deposition. Systemic compromising factors include diabetes, rheumatic diseases, renal or liver disease, immune compromise, steroids, smoking, and poor nutrition. In high risk situations the surgeon should encourage positive patient choices such as smoking cessation and nutritional supplementation to elevate the total lymphocyte count and total albumin.

Careful planning of incisions, particularly in patients with scarring or multiple previous operations, is productive. Around the knee the vascular viability is better in the medial flap. Thus, use the most lateral previous incision, do minimal undermining, and handle tissue meticulously. We do all potentially complicated TKAs without tourniquet to enhance blood flow and tissue viability. The use of perioperative anticoagulation will increase wound problems.

If wound drainage or healing problems do occur immediate action is required. Deep sepsis can be ruled out with a joint aspiration and cell count, and negative culture and sensitivity. All hematomas should be evacuated and necrosis or dehiscence should be managed by debridement to obtain a live wound. Options available for coverage of complex wound problems include myocutaneous flaps, pedicled skin flaps, and skin grafts. Wet, occlusive dressings and wound VACs encourage epithelisation of chronic wounds.

The cornerstone to correct ligament balancing is correct varus and valgus alignment in flexion and extension. For alignment in the extended position, fixed anatomic landmarks such as the intramedullary canal of the femur and long axis of the tibia are accepted. When the joint surface is resected at an angle of 5° to 7° valgus to the medullary canal of the femur and perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia, the joint surfaces are perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the lower extremity, and roughly parallel to the epicondylar axis. In the flexed position, anatomic landmarks are equally important for varus-valgus alignment. Incorrect varus-valgus alignment in flexion not only malaligns the long axes of the femur and tibia, but also incorrectly positions the patellar groove both in flexion and extension.

Finding suitable landmarks for varus-valgus alignment has led to efforts to use the posterior femoral condyles, epicondylar axis, and anteroposterior (AP) axis of the femur. The posterior femoral condyles often are not reliable rotational alignment landmarks because the femoral joint surface has been worn or otherwise distorted by developmental abnormalities or the arthritic process. As with the distal surfaces, the posterior femoral condylar surfaces sometimes are damaged or hypoplastic (more commonly in the valgus than in the varus knee) and cannot serve as reliable anatomic guides for alignment. The epicondylar axis is anatomically inconsistent and in all cases other than revision total knee arthroplasty with severe bone loss, is unreliable for varus-valgus alignment in flexion just as it is in extension. The AP axis, defined by the centre of the intercondylar notch posteriorly and the deepest part of the patellar groove anteriorly, is highly consistent, and always lies within the median sagittal plane that bisects the lower extremity, passing through the hip, knee, and ankle. When the articular surfaces are resected perpendicular to the AP axis, they are perpendicular to the AP plane, and the extremity can function normally in this plane throughout the arc of flexion. Once the knee is set up in correct alignment, ligament balancing can be done with simple procedures based on basic anatomy. Anterior structures tighten in flexion, and posterior structures tighten in extension. Release of tight structures in a controlled fashion completes the aligned and balanced knee.

Conventional total knee arthroplasty aims to place the joint line perpendicular to the mechanical axis, despite the fact that the normal knee is inclined approximately 3 degrees, resulting in a medial proximal tibial angle of 87 degrees. The goal of a neutral mechanical axis is based largely on historical biomedical studies and the fact that it is easier to make a neutral tibial cut with conventional jigs and the eye. In order to balance the flexion and extension gap to accommodate a neutral tibial cut, in most patients, asymmetrical distal and posterior femoral cuts are required. The resulting position of the femoral component could be considered to be “mal-rotated” with respect to the patient's soft tissue envelope. Soft tissue releases are often required.

The target of neutral mechanical axis, or “straight and narrow,” represents a compromise position with respect to the kinematics of the knee. Neutral mechanical alignment may not confer any befits with respect to survivorship but dissatisfaction rates are high globally, with approximately 20% of patients being dissatisfied after total knee arthroplasty in multiple studies.

Computer assisted surgery and shape matching allow for consideration of placing total knee components to match an individual's anatomy, as opposed to forcing the knee into an unnatural neutral mechanical alignment.

In properly chosen patients, cementless total knee arthroplasty has achieved success rates equal to cemented designs. The initial variable results of early cementless total knee replacements were a function of design, surgical technique and patient selection. Important design considerations that have enhanced biologic ingrowth include the use of commercially pure titanium with optimal pore size and porosity, and avoidance of porous-coated stems and plugs that cause stress shielding of the bone-implant interface. Factors in surgical technique that enhance bone ingrowth include precise bone cuts that maximize bone-implant contact, and the application of autogenous bone slurry to cut surfaces. Additional factors are restoration of normal alignment, appropriate ligament balance, and the reproduction of the patient's native tibial slope in order to prevent tibial component subsidence. Young and active patients are ideal biological hosts for the use of cementless knee fixation. Their relatively dense cancellous bone and rich blood supply provides for robust purchase for initial fixation and the appropriate milieu for long-term biologic fixation. With increasing life expectancy, this more durable interface is desirable. With avoidance of porous-coated stems and pegs and prevention of fibrous tissue attachment, potential future revisions are more bone-sparing relative to methylmethacrylate fixation. Numerous reports, as well as the authors' published 10- to 14-year results, demonstrate that cementless fixation in appropriately selected patients provides results comparable to cemented TKA, with the advantage of conserving bone stock and eliminating the potential problems of cement fixation.

Cementless femoral fixation in total knee replacement has proven to be successful in many studies. There is a recent report by Berger et al, on failure of cementless fixation in a high flexion TKR design. This was with a FiberWire material that had good ingrowth characteristics but was not ideal in terms of immediate fixation.

Cementless patellar fixation to date has required a metal backed patella, which has proven to be problematic in most design. For this reason, most surgeons who resurface the patella do so with an all-polyethylene cemented design.

The major controversy is cemented tibial fixation. This is problematic when performed with ancillary screw fixation due to screw osteolysis. There are newer designs that have shown promise but cemented tibial fixation remains the gold standard.

It is true that early designs of cementless hips were associated with poor results, but newer designs have led to cementless fixation in total hip arthroplasty as the gold standard. It is clear that with newer materials, ancillary biologics and improved design that cementless total knee fixation will eventually prevail. At the present time, the wine needs to stay in the cellar for now.

From 1985 through 1997, 56 isolated tibial insert exchange revisions were performed at our institution. Fifty-five patients with wear or instability were included. Those with loosening of any of the components, history of infection, severe knee stiffness or problems with the extensor mechanism were excluded. There were 29 males (1 bilateral) and 26 female patients with a mean age of 66 years (range 35 to 83 years) at the time of revision surgery. Twenty-seven inserts were exchanged based on ligamentous instability, 24 because of insert wear or breakage including two cases of polyethylene dislodgment from the tibial base-plate and 5 for other reasons. Twelve knees had one to three prior revisions. Surveillance from index arthroplasty averaged 8.3 years (range 1.6 to 16.2 years) and since revision 4.6 years (range 2 to 14 years).

Knee Society and Function Scores improved from 56 and 50.9 prior to revision to 76 and 59 at final surveillance respectively. Fourteen (25%) of the 56 knees subsequently required re-revision after a mean of only three years (0.5–6.8) from tibial insert exchange. The cumulative survival at 5.5 years was 63.5% (95%CI=+/−14.4, n=19). Of the 27 patients with pre-operative instability, eight were revised and another four were considered as failures due to severe pain. Of the 24 failed inserts, five were re-revised, one was amputated as a result of chronic ankle osteomyelitis concomitant to a chronically painful arthroplasty, and another two inserts failed due to severe pain.

Isolated tibial insert exchange led to a surprisingly high early failure rate. Tibial insert exchange should therefore be undertaken with caution as an isolated method of total knee revision surgery even in those circumstances for which the modular insert was designed and felt to be of greatest value.

A modular tibial insert exchange is a seemingly attractive benign and simple surgical alternative when compared to full knee revision. Unfortunately, the results have been less than satisfactory with modular insert exchange for polyethylene wear and knee instability. Babis et al reported the results of 56 isolated insert exchanges performed for wear or instability. The re-revision rate was 25% at a mean follow-up of 3-years and the cumulative survival rate was only 63.5% at 5.5 years. In another study, 27% (6/22) insert exchanges for wear required re-revision within 5 years. Bert et al reported scoring and damage in 89% of 55 retained components considered candidates for isolated insert exchange. Such damage could account for accelerated wear of a new insert.

These studies are misleading. The new insert must be polyethylene not prone to oxidation and accelerated wear. In a recent study of 177 revisions for wear and osteolysis, the survivorship of insert exchange using non-irradiated poly was 100%. Insert exchange does not correct the problem of a poor tibial locking mechanism. Whiteside and Katerberg reported 3 failures in 49 insert exchanges, fabrication of the tibial locking mechanism was used to address this problem. With revision for instability, insert exchange must provide full stability in both flexion and extension.

Tibial insert exchange must correct the underlying cause of failure that led to the revision surgery. Full knee revision is a complex procedure that brings with it increased risks of perioperative complications such as infection and should be reserved only for cases that will not do well with simple insert exchange.

Although cartilage repair has been around since the time of open Pridie drilling, clinical outcomes for newer techniques such as arthroscopic debridement, microfracture (MFX), osteochondral autograft transfers (OATS), osteochondral allograft transplantation and Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) are still finding their place in treating injured knees.

Early mechanical symptoms are best managed by a gentle arthroscopic debridement of loose articular flaps. This allows the surgeon to assess the defect size, location in the tibio-femoral or patellofemoral joint, status of the cartilage overall and patients response to the intervention. If the symptom improvement is not satisfactory to the patient, after assessing background factors that will influence the results of a cartilage repair procedure, (alignment of the patellofemoral joint or axial alignment, ligament stability and status of the meniscus), the surgeon can choose the best procedure for that individual based on the expected outcomes of the various cartilage repair techniques while addressing the background factors. As all the techniques have failures and informed discussion with the patient prior to performing the procedure is critical in avoiding disappointment for the patient and the surgeon.

The repair technique used should incorporate considerations of the defect size, location, and the patient age, activity level, expectations and ability to comply with the longer rehabilitation needed for biological procedures as compared to prosthetic implants.

Conservative management of osteoarthritis is boring, boring, boring! After all, we are surgeons. We operate, we cut! We all know that to retain respectability we have to go through the motions of ‘conservative management’, just so that we don't appear too anxious to apply a ‘real’ solution to the problem.

However, the statistics are overwhelming. An estimated 43 million Americans have ‘arthritis’, but only 400,000 are coming forward each year for TKR. That means that in one way or another 42,600,000 are being treated conservatively. Most of those are self treating by self medication, use of external support, but mostly by decreasing their activities to a level where they can tolerate symptoms. They come to us when these measures stop working.

We know what to do. 1. Weight loss – patients don't do it, 2. Physical therapy – very limited effectiveness 3. NSAIDS – patients have already tried OTC NSAIDS and have heard scary stories about therapeutic NSAIDS, 4. Hyaluronans – expensive, labour intensive, modest effectiveness, 5. Glucosamine/Chondroitin – might work, won't hurt, mixed evidence, 6. SAM-e, MSM – limited evidence – who knows?

What's on the horizon? Could OA of the knee go the way of RA, i.e. dramatically disappear from the population seeking TKR? It could happen. Electrical stimulation – it does good things for chondrocytes, circulation, suppresses destructive enzymes and in controlled studies reduces symptoms and improves function, deferring TKR. Cell therapy – possibly an effective solution to early cartilage lesions in the knee.

The biomechanical rationale for osteotomy and the pathogenesis of degenerative arthrosis accompanying malalignment has been delineated well. Malalignment of the limb results in added stress on damaged articular cartilage and causes further loss of articular cartilage that subsequently exacerbates the limb malalignment. A downward spiral of progressive deformity and additional loss of articular cartilage occurs over time. Osteotomy can be used to realign the limb, reduce stress on the articular cartilage at risk and share the load with the opposite compartment of the knee. In appropriately selected patients osteotomy is a reliable operation to improve pain and function. Over the past two decades osteotomy has been viewed largely as a temporising measure to buy time for patients before they ultimately have a total knee arthroplasty. In this role, osteotomy has largely been accepted as successful. Substantial improvements in pain and function have been documented and seem to hold up well over a 7 to 10 year period after the osteotomy. Medial opening wedge osteotomy has recently gained in popularity in the United States after a long period of use in Europe. Potential advantages of the medial opening wedge technique include the ability to easily adjust the degree of correction intra-operatively, the ability to correct deformities in the sagittal plane as well as the coronal plane, the need to make only one bone cut, and avoiding the tibiofibular joint. The downsides of the opening wedge technique include the need for bone graft to fill the created defect, a potentially higher rate of non-union or delayed union, and a longer period of restricted weight bearing after the procedure.

Partial knee arthroplasty is making a resurgence as many patients and surgeons are realising that there are good options for preserving normally functioning knee tissues when facing end-stage knee OA without having to automatically proceed to TKA. What are potential advantages of this type of reasoning and could “less be more”? TKA is not a benign treatment for isolated unicompartmental knee disease. A multicentre study examining 2,919 TKA's and UKA's found lower rates of overall complications at 11% for TKA's and 4.3% for UKA's. Significant variables for TKA included longer length of stay, more patients sent to an ECF, higher manipulation rate, higher readmission, ICU admission, and transfusion rates. Bolognesi, et al examining 68,790 TKA and UKA, reproduced these results with lower DVT/PE, deep infection rates and lower death rates. The 1 year and 5 year revision rates were higher for UKA's and have been hypothesised to be lower thresholds for revision of dissatisfied UKA vs. a TKA with well-fixed implants.

Hospital costs continue to rise for arthroplasty procedures. Outpatient procedures may decrease cost, improve patient satisfaction, and improve physician efficiency. Our outpatient UKA program includes pre-op medical assessment and education, regional and pre-emptive anesthesia, post-op home care prn, and coordination with family and therapy providers. We utilise risk stratification mobile foot pumps, IV heparin, and oral ECASA for DVT prophylaxis. Patient satisfaction is very high in the outpatient setting.

We have performed 60 inpatient UKAs and 82 outpatient UKAs this year. To date we have had no acute hospital admissions. This program has worked well in our hands but may not be generalisable to all centres and all patients.

Functional improvements may be better for UKA vs. TKA further substantiating the evidence that “less is more” for the surgical treatment of isolated compartmental disease of the knee.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has produced excellent results, but many surgeons are hesitant to perform TKA in younger patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis. In properly selected patients, patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an effective procedure with good long-term results. Contemporary PFA prostheses have eliminated many of the patellar maltracking problems associated with older designs, and short-term results, as described here, are encouraging. Long-term outcome and prospective trials comparing TKA to PFA are needed.

Patient selection has always been considered an important criterion in determining the success or failure of a TKA. In the early days of TKA, orthopaedic surgeons and patients were both uncertain as to the long-term outcomes and most TKAs were performed in patients >65 years of age. Since that time, a number of peer-reviewed studies have provided Level III evidence indicating that TKA was a reliable procedure with 91% to 99% survivorship during the first decade and 85% to 97% during the second decade of follow-up. These encouraging TKA results have prompted a growth in TKA utilisation, particularly in younger patients and a move away from procedures such as osteotomy and UKA which have been associated with higher re-operation rates. As a result, over the past decade, the fastest growing TKA patient cohorts have been in the 45–54 (337% increase for females, 271% for males) and 55–64 (260% increase for females and 213% for males) year old patient groups!

The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register has followed Swedish TKA patients since 1975 and has provided useful insights with regards the use of knee arthroplasties in younger patients (i.e. an encouraging TKA revision risk reduction from 1976 to 2009, a higher revision rate for UKAs and higher revision rates for both TKAs and UKAs in younger patients). The Australian National Joint Replacement Registry has also found that age adversely affects knee arthroplasty revision rates, noting higher cumulative, ten-year revision rates for both UKA and TKA patients <55 years of age (UKA 25%, TKA 13%) and 55–64 years of age (UKA 17%, TKA 8%) and a 6X greater revision rate for TKA patients <55 compared to those >75 years of age! In addition, although mobile-bearing TKAs have often been promoted for use in younger patients, higher cumulative revision rates were noted for mobile-bearing TKAs (7%) as compared to fixed-bearing TKAs (5%) at 10 years.

In summary, although TKA outcomes have improved with time, the lack of long-term supporting data should prompt surgeons to be cautious in offering TKA to patients with 20 to 40 more years of life expectancy. New TKA bearing couple technologies (ie. cross-linked polyethylenes and improved femoral counterfaces) should be encouraged, but their introduction should not be based on laboratory tests alone, but also supported by safety and efficacy studies in patients and long-term post-market surveillance data.

“Expert opinion” is the lowest totem on the academic pole- and yet, “evidence based” medicine does not always provide us answers for the particular, the unusual clinical problem. Well-controlled studies are precisely that: “well controlled”. Life may be randomised, but falls short of being “well controlled”.

The challenge and honoufavourr of moderating a panel of experienced and articulate colleagues is to bring out “how they think” and how they formulate a plan for complex cases. The panel members are not only experienced practitioners, but they are the authors of studies that shape our profession. What are the limits to the studies they have published? What insight can they provide us to help understand “level 1” data more astutely? What biases and assumptions support their methods? Nothing achieves that with greater clarity than presentation of complex cases to an accomplished panel.

Several ordinary clinical problems are presented to establish current practice, followed by the unexpected outcomes to illustrate how experts deal with adversity.

After decades of clinical experience and hundreds of studies, the ideal method of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis remains controversial. One of the most widely quoted publications on the subject in recent years has been the guidelines published by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). The seventh and eighth ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis were published in Chest in 2004 and 2008 respectively. The highest level recommendation (1-A) was reserved for Warfarin at a relatively high dose (target international normalised ratio (INR) of 2–3), Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH), or Fondaparinux for a minimum of 10 days for both total hip and total knee replacement. These agents were recommended for all patients, regardless of their relative risk of bleeding or risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These recommendations were found to be aggressive by the standards of most orthopaedic surgeons and a number of issues were identified with the methodology and resulting recommendations of the ACCP including: The emphasis on multicentre randomised clinical trials that are enormously expensive and strongly weighted towards pharmaceutical sponsored studies, methodology that prevented inclusion of studies of lower cost, lower tech options such as aspirin or lower dose Warfarin since randomised trials on a large scale are not available due to lack of funding or pharmaceutical company interest in generic low-cost options, lack of consideration of pneumatic compression options such as newly available mobile foot pumps with chips for monitoring compliance, financial conflict of interest of virtually all of the authors of the guidelines and the fundamental problem with utilising asymptomatic DVT as a study endpoint. The concerns with the aggressive nature of these recommendations were confirmed by studies from two academic centres which reported a high incidence of wound and bleeding complications when changing to a 1-A protocol. Recent studies indicate that readmissions following joint replacement are much more likely to be due to wound drainage and bleeding complications than DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE). In response to these concerns, the AAOS released guidelines in 2008 that were updated in 2011. The resulting recommendations represented a dramatic departure from the ACCP guidelines. Clinically crucial endpoints such as PE and death were utilized in the analysis rather than asymptomatic DVT, which was the criteria utilised by the Chest Physicians and the 2011 recommendations also considered symptomatic DVT. The AAOS guidelines consider patient risk category rather than making a uniform recommendation for all patients. Much more discretion is given to surgeons to utilise less aggressive prophylactic strategies including aspirin and foot pumps.

In 2012, the ninth edition of the ACCP guidelines was published and many of the concerns previously expressed over prior editions were successfully addressed. Conflict of interest among the authors was much less of an issue, there was more attention placed on symptomatic events and clinically important complications, and a wider scope of literature was considered. The resulting guidelines represented a dramatic departure from previous recommendations. Aspirin and pneumatic compression were elevated to level 1 recommendation status along with potent drug regimens such as injectable drugs (LMWH and Xa inhibitor) as well as the new oral Xa inhibitors and antithrombin agents. When pneumatic compression devices are utilised, the use of a battery powered device capable of recording compliance was recommended. Patient risk status as well as patient preference were also considered. The new ACCP guidelines have successfully addressed many of the concerns previously addressed and are much more in line with the AAOS guidelines. It is anticipated that the federal Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) guidelines for VTE prophylaxis will be released in 2013 and will also embrace the changes recommended by the ACCP. It is further likely that the AAOS and ACCP guidelines are close enough that they may well join forces in the near future and release a single unified document.

The goals of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are to relieve pain, restore function, and provide a stable joint. In regard to types of implants, the workhorses are posterior cruciate retaining (CR), posterior stabilised (PS), and posterior stabilised constrained (PSC) designs. However, the continuum of constraint now ranges from standard cruciate retaining (CR-S) to CR lipped (CR-L), to anterior stabilised (CR-AS), to posterior stabilised, to a PS “plus” that fits with a PS femoral component but provides a small degree of varus-valgus constraint, to a PSC or constrained condylar type of device, to a rotating hinge. As the degree of deformity, bone loss, contracture, ligamentous instability and osteopenia increases, so does the demand for prosthetic constraint. When deformity is minimal and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is intact and functional, a CR-S device is appropriate. For moderate deformity with deficiency or compromise of the PCL, a CR-AS or posterior stabilised device is warranted. In severe cases, with attenuation or absence of either of the collateral ligaments, a constrained condylar device, with options of stems, wedges and augments, is advisable. In salvage situations, when both collaterals are compromised, a rotating hinge should be utilised. Prerequisites for use of a CR-S device are an intact PCL, balanced medial and lateral collateral ligaments, and equal flexion and extension gaps. With a CR-L bearing, a slight posterior lip is incorporated into the sagittal profile of the component to provide a small amount of extra stability in the articulation. It is important for the surgeon to be aware of the design features of the implant system he or she is using. For example, in a system where the CR-S bearing has 3° of posterior slope and the CR-L bearing has no slope, the thickness of a CR-L bearing posteriorly is approximately 2 mm greater than the CR-S. A CR-L bearing is indicated for to provide stability where the flexion gap is just slightly looser than the extension gap and the PCL is intact. If the patient's knee is somewhat lax in flexion and stable in extension, a CR-L bearing may help to stabilize both the flexion and extension gaps yet still allow the knee to obtain full extension, whereas if a CR-S bearing in the next thicker size is used to stabilise the flexion gap, a flexion contracture may result. CR-AS bearings are required less frequently. They are indicated when the flexion and extension gaps are balanced, but the PCL is deficient, and the surgeon does not want to change to a PS design, which requires additional bony resection of intercondylar notch. The PCL is one of the strongest ligaments in the knee, and affords inherent stability to the TKA. In flexion, the PCL not only affords AP stability, but also imparts flexion gap stability, acting as a lateral stabilizer of the medial compartment and a medial stabiliser of the lateral compartment. The PCL has a crucial role with respect to femoral rollback, which imparts added efficiency to the extensor mechanism. PCL retention is a more biologically preserving operative intervention than PS-TKA.

Varus deformity encompasses a wide spectrum of pathology and merits individualised treatment. In most knees there is loss of articular cartilage or bone medially; this is associated with contractures of posteromedial structures of varying rigidity. In addition, there may be significant elongation of lateral ligamentous structures, and associated extra-articular femoral or tibial bowing or angulation. The principles of correction of varus include (i) a thorough clinical and radiological assessment of the limb before surgery and examination under anesthesia, (ii) appropriate bone cuts to correctly orient prostheses and restore normal alignment of the limb, (iii) equalising medial and lateral balance in flexion and extension by soft tissue releases and concomitant bony procedures and (iv) addressing associated bony defects and extra-articular deformity. Examples of each of these situations will be shown along with the technique deployed.

Results of conventional TKA in treating 173 knees with varus deformity exceeding 20o will be presented. Our technique of selective posteromedial release, reduction osteotomy of posteromedial tibial flare, sliding medial condylar osteotomy and bone grafting of medial defects, with preservation of medial collateral ligament integrity will be shown. The method of correcting extra-articular deformity will be depicted. With these techniques, mean tibiofemoral angle of 22.7 degrees varus pre-operatively (range 15–62) was corrected to 5.3 degrees valgus (range 2–9) post-operatively. 86% knees were in 4–10 degrees valgus post-operatively. Recent experience with CAS in treating over 200 patients with deformity exceeding 20 degrees will be presented along with the risk factors leading to malalignment.

Correction of severe varus deformity by the techniques reported can successfully restore alignment, painfree motion, and stability without the use of highly constrained implants.

Deformity correction is a fundamental goal in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Severe valgus deformities often present the surgeon with a complex challenge. These deformities are associated with abnormal bone anatomy, ligament laxity and soft tissue contractures. Distorted bone anatomy is due to bone loss on the lateral femoral condyle, especially posteriorly. To a lesser extent bone loss occurs from the lateral tibia plateau. The AP Axis (Whiteside's Line) or Epicondylar axis must be used as a rotational landmark in the severely valgus knee. Gap balancing techniques can be helpful in the severely valgus knee, but good extension balance must be obtained before setting femoral rotation with this technique. Coronal alignment is generally corrected to neutral or 2 to 3 degree overcorrection to mild mechanical varus to unload the attenuated medial ligaments.

The goal of soft tissue releases is to obtain rectangular flexion and extension gaps. Soft tissue releases involve the IT band, Posterolateral corner/Accurate Complex, Posterior Capsule, LCL, and Popliteus Tendon. Assessment of which structures is made and then releases are performed. In general Pie Crust release of the ITB is sufficient for mild deformity. More severe deformities require release of the Posterolateral corner/Accurate Complex and Posterior Capsule. I prefer a pie crust technique, while Ranawat has described the use of electrocautery to perform these posterior/ posterolateral releases. In most cases the LCL is not released, however, this can be released from the lateral epicondyle if necessary.

Good ligament balance can be obtained in most cases, however, some cases with severe medial ligament attenuation require additional ligament constraint such as a constrained condylar implant.

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an effective medication to limit blood loss and transfusion requirements in association with contemporary total joint arthroplasty. TXA is in a class of medications termed anti-fibrinolytics due to their action to limit the breakdown of clot that has already been formed. It is useful to note that TXA does not promote the formation of clot, it simply limits the breakdown of already established clot. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of TXA use in total hip replacement demonstrated: 1) a substantial reduction in the proportion of patients who required transfusion and 2) no increase in DVT or PE. Similarly a recent Cochrane Database systematic review assessed Anti-fibrinolytic Use for Minimising Perioperative Blood Transfusion and found tranexamic acid to be effective in reducing blood loss during and after surgery and to be free of serious adverse effects. The typical dose of TXA in cardiac surgery has been 10–20 mg/kg as an IV bolus given over 10–20 minutes followed by continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg/hour for 8 hours. In orthopaedic surgery varying doses have been used over time. A pragmatic dosing approach for Total Knee and Total Hip patients has been used at the Mayo Clinic over the past 10 years: 1 gram IV over 10 minutes prior to incision (delivered at same time as pre-op antibiotics) followed by 1 gram IV over 10 minutes at the time wound closure is initiated. Infusion rates greater than 100 mg/minute have been associated with hypotension and thus the recommendation for 1 gram over 10 minutes. A recent review of 1500 TKA patients at Mayo Clinic revealed a very low prevalence of clinically symptomatic DVT and PE when tranexamic acid was used with 3 different thromboembolic prophylaxis regimens (aspirin and foot pumps; coumadin; low molecular weight heparin). The safety of TXA for patients with coronary stents has not been fully clarified.

The goals of any rehabilitation protocol should be to control pain, improve ambulation, maximise range-of-motion, develop muscle strength and provide emotional support.

Over 85% of TKR patients will recover knee function regardless of which rehabilitation protocol is adopted but the process can be facilitated by proper pain control, physical therapy and emotional support.

The remaining 15% of patients will have difficulty obtaining proper knee function secondary to significant pain, limited pre-operative motion and/or the development of arthrofibrosis. This subset will require a special, individualized rehabilitation program which may involve prolonged oral analgesia, continued physical therapy, more diagnostic studies and occasionally manipulation. Controlling pain is the mainstay of any treatment plan.

The program described herein has been used at Ranawat Orthopaedics over the last 10 years in more than 2000 TKRs.

Obesity is a growing worldwide health issue! In my home country, the percentage of obese Canadians grew from 13.8% in 1979 to 23.1% in 2004. Interestingly, TKA rates have grown substantially during this time frame and obesity seems to have been a major contributor. In a large study, we found that increasing obesity had an exponential effect on TKA rates (i.e. patients with a body mass index >40 having a 33X greater relative risk of receiving a TKA compared to a normal weight patients). This is an important issue, as obese TKA patients have been shown to have greater pre-operative disability, have longer waits for surgery, be associated with greater technical difficulties (i.e. wound healing, infection, ligamentous injury, deep vein thrombosis and medical issues) and have more peri-operative complications. As a result, some countries have advocated deferring TKAs in obese patients until they have lost a substantial amount of weight despite the fact that many studies have demonstrated that the required weight reduction is seldom achieved. In an effort to understand this issue, we have conducted several studies. In a multicentre study, we could find no link between patient obesity and the level of patient satisfaction following a primary TKA. In another mid-term study, we found that obese patients had equal implant survivorship, but did note that obese patients had lower pre-operative and post-operative health-related quality of life outcome scores. However, in this manuscript we advocated determining the ‘improvement or delta score’ (i.e. difference between the pre-operative and post-operative scores) and found that when this was done, obese TKA patients actually demonstrated more improvement than normal and overweight patients!

Based on our research, we would make the following recommendations: (1) the public should be educated on the effect of obesity on TKA rates, (2) weight management should be an important part of non-operative knee arthritis management and (3) TKA should ‘not’ be withheld from obese patients with end-stage knee arthritis.

This session will offer insight into what five leading surgeons have learned throughout their careers and lives. Their presentations should be invaluable, both for the challenges of the present, and planning for your future after orthopaedics!

Total knee arthroplasty is a reliable and durable solution to knee arthritis that fails conservative management. However, there are clinical pitfalls awaiting the surgeon, which can be avoided with forethought and analysis. The majority of early TKR failures are related to technical error on the part of the surgeon! The top 10 errors are: 10.

The knee attached to secondary gain: worker's comp, depression, etc. will make a successful outcome less likely.

And the #1 way to ruin a good result is…

Operating too early! Don't operate on the x-ray, and exhaust all reasonable conservative therapy and non-arthroplasty alternatives before resorting to prosthetic arthroplasty. The patient needs to understand the limitations of technology, and have reasonable expectations. Make sure the pre-op symptoms justify the procedure!

Multiple large studies, including from national registries, have demonstrated that satisfaction rates after total knee arthroplasty are limited to approximately 80%. That is, surprisingly, one in five patients are not satisfied. Furthermore, satisfaction rates have not improved over the last decade.

The strongest correlates to satisfaction are firstly the relief of pain and secondly the improvement in physical function. However, satisfaction may be disparate to other reported subjective outcomes. It is a nebulous outcome metric.

The largest risk for patient dissatisfaction is unmet expectations post total knee arthroplasty.

Keeping the above risks in mind, an effective strategy to improve satisfaction rates likely should concentrate on reducing pain both immediately post-operatively and long term, improving function of the knee, perhaps through a patient specific alignment approach, and most importantly, by understanding and counseling patients regarding expectations pre-operatively.

Flexion contractures are a common finding in an end-stage arthritic knee, occurring in up to 60% of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Fixed flexion deformities may result from posterior capsular scarring, osteophyte formation, and bony impingement. It is essential to correct this deformity at the time of total knee arthroplasty, as a residual flexion contracture will result in joint overload and abnormal gait mechanics. This may translate to a slower walking velocity, shorter stride length, and pain.

This presentation will discuss a systematic way of dealing with flexion contractures to ensure that the total knee arthroplasty will achieve full extension. The surgical technique for treating fixed flexion deformity about the knee includes release of the posterior cruciate ligament, posterior capsular release, adequate distal femoral bone resection, and removal of osteophytes.

Post-operatively, attention must be divided between obtaining maximal flexion and full extension. Should a flexion contracture be noted upon the post-operative visit, additional measures should be taken to address it.

Stability after TKA is essential for knee function and patient satisfaction. Stability may be marginally more important even than alignment because “stability” means there will be ONE alignment, whereas INSTABILITY means there will be many alignments of the joint, usually the worst one for any loading pattern. Whereas alignment results from the orientation and size of implants, stability depends on all of these, plus soft tissue integrity and in many cases, surgical alteration. Ligament releases (and rarely reconstructions) will certainly be required if alignment is changed with the arthroplasty. Instability may be a subtle or flagrant problem.

The “Instabilities” are: i.

Varus- valgus

Varus-valgus instability is the prototype and while it may originate exclusively from the failure of soft tissue, knee alignment and dynamic forces outside the knee joint such as hip abductor dysfunction, scoliois and tibialis posterior rupture may be implicated. A comprehensive approach will be needed.

Flexion instability, most simply stated results from a flexion gap that exceeds the dimensions of the extension gap. It will result most commonly after surgery for the patient with a fixed flexion contracture whose knee extends fully because a relatively thin polyethylene insert has been selected. So-called “mid-flexion” instability (implying stability in extension and flexion) has not yet been thoroughly characterised.

Extension instability includes all failures of the extensor mechanism (rupture, maltracking and weakness) which are better characterised as “buckling” under a separate topic. Recurvatum has received little attention but can generate the most destructive forces leading to knee arthroplasty failure. In general begins as a compensatory mechanism for relative extensor weakness.

All treatment of the unstable TKA must characterise the mode(s) of failure above and correct the underlying cause. Surgical technique will be extremely important, followed eventually by implant selection.

Supracondylar femur fractures are an uncommon but serious complication following TKA. The optimal treatment method often depends on the specific fracture pattern and various patient-related factors, and can be controversial in many cases. Nonoperative treatment can be considered in low-demand patients with minimally displaced fractures, whereas fractures associated with loose components typically require revision surgery. Displaced fractures with well-fixed implants can be treated successfully using one of several different strategies. Internal fixation after open or closed reduction can be achieved using either an intramedullary device or plate-and-screw constructs. Good results have been reported using intramedullary nails, although their use is limited to certain fracture patterns and implants designs. Modern periarticular locking plates featuring polyaxial locking screws can be inserted laterally in a submuscular fashion and offer the ability to achieve rigid fixation in the short distal fragment. These plates offer a robust treatment option for most fracture patterns. Alternatively, reliable healing and good functional results can also be achieved by revision of the femoral component using stemmed implants to bypass the fracture site. This strategy typically does not require distal femoral replacement or conversion to a hinge, and can provide consistently good results. Regardless of the treatment method chosen, careful attention should be given at the time of surgery avoid malalignment, malrotation, and distraction at the fracture site which can compromise the ultimate clinical outcome. Intra-operative femoral fractures are a rare complication that usually occurs during exposure, bone preparation, or trialing. If recognised intra-operatively and treated appropriately, reliable healing can occur.

A key component to the success of total knee replacement is the health and integrity of the extensor mechanism. While there are issues related to the patella, such as fracture, dislocation, subluxation, clunk due to peripatellar fibrosis and anterior knee pain, the overall integrity of the extensor mechanism is of tantamount importance in providing an excellent functional outcome. During total knee replacement it is of utmost importance to preserve the anatomic insertion of the patellar tendon on the tibial tubercle. However, after total knee replacement, a fall or extreme osteoporosis of the patella may cause a rupture of the patellar tendon, distally or proximally, and possibly the quadriceps tendon off of the proximal pole of the patella.

Simple repairs of the patellar tendon avulsion may involve use of the semitendonosis and gracilis tendons along with primary repair of the tendon. Usually, patella infera develops after such a repair affecting overall strength and function. For severe disruptions of the extensor mechanism that are accompanied by a significant extensor lag, autologous tissue repair may not be possible. Thus, there are three techniques for reconstruction of this difficult problem: Extensor mechanism allograft with bone-patellar tendon-patella-quadriceps tendon, extensor mechanism allograft with os calcis-Achilles tendon construct and Marlex-mesh reconstruction for patellar tendon avulsion.

The key to success of extensor mechanism allograft is proper tensioning of the allograft at full extensor and immobilisation for 6 weeks. Rosenberg's early experience showed that the allograft works best placed at maximum tension in extension. Rubash has described the use of the os calsis-Achilles tendon which does not utilise a patellar substitute. Hansen has recently described excellent results with the use of Marlex mesh to act as a structural reinforcement to the patellar tendon when it is avulsed.

Implant wear and osteolysis have been a major cause of failure of total knee implants. In the mid-1990s, manufacturers recognised the impact of oxidation on wear with implants sterilised by gamma irradiation in air and changed their methods of sterilisation. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in wear. In retrieval studies, non-irradiated polyethylene has not shown the fatigue type of failure associated with oxidation. The percentage of revisions done at the Anderson Clinic for polyethylene wear for osteolysis has dropped from 44% in the late 1990s to 4% in the past decade. With the continued use of polyethylene free of oxidation, we anticipate a further reduction in the need for revision surgery secondary to wear and osteolysis.

Highly cross-linked polyethylene was introduced to further reduce wear with total knee implants. Higher levels of irradiation used increases crosslinking in the polyethylene but the material strength is reduced. Although volumetric wear is reduced, the wear particles are smaller in size and potentially more bio-reactive. The Manufacturer And User Device Experience Database (MAUDE) reports describe early implant breakage and osteolysis of highly cross-linked polyethylene inserts. Implants that were highly crosslinked with quenched free radicals demonstrate increased levels of oxidation after retrieval unlike, never implanted components “off-the-shelf”. Backside wear remains a concern as non-modular implants have better long-term survivorship compared to their modular counterparts. These reports should temper enthusiasm for using highly cross-linked material in knees or modular tibial components until longer term clinical and retrieval studies have been completed.

There is a renewed debate regarding the relative importance of (primarily varus-valgus) stability versus alignment in TKA. Some surgeons have posited that stability is of greater importance. Perhaps this is because unstable knees fail immediately whereas mal-aligned knees generally suffer late failure from wear, osteolysis and loosening. Or perhaps some surgeons find soft tissue techniques challenging. Clearly alignment and stability are both necessary for immediate function and long-term durability.

Ligament tensioners are as old as condylar knee arthroplasties. They first appeared when surgeons moved beyond hinged arthroplasties with a goal of melding anatomy and biomechanics- to re-establish stability and correct pathologic deformity. Early techniques stipulated that ligament releases should be performed first, before any bone cuts thus correcting deformity and restoring stability. Crude mechanical instruments were replaced by mechanical devices.

Acknowledging more exacting standards, our ability to hit the target of desired alignment and stability is limited unassisted. As more sophisticated devices have been introduced to help surgeons correct alignment we have not yet discovered the perfect mechanical, electronic, navigated or laser guided “tensioner”. We still struggle to divine the “best” alignment. The principle however endures, that integrating stability and alignment, if with nothing more than a “cognitive tensioner” is essential to optimal short and long-term arthroplasty function.

Correct alignment and ligament tension are widely accepted conditional features of successful TKA. The technical route of achieving this goal remains a matter of debate. Two philosophies prevail: measured resection as a geometry based system, and tensioned gaps, based upon the dependent relation between tibia and femur. Both techniques claim the best results and are often presented as radically different. From a conceptual standpoint, however, the dependent technique is not purely ligament based as it starts with a cut of the proximal tibia, which is geometrically ruled by sagittal and coronal alignment targets. As such, geometric alignment is the starting point of both techniques.

The use of ligament tensioners as the main basis for obtaining stability and alignment can be a treacherous route to follow. In the native knee that is not affected by arthritis, the functional characteristics of the ligaments are determined by their insertions and the articular geometry. Once the arthritis sets in, the articular surface deforms and leg alignment deviates. It is difficult to restore these parameters, making use of ligament tension as a guide, for the following reasons.

Ligament tension is hard to measure reproducibly intra-operatively. The stress-strain curves of ligaments are different and the magnitude of the optimal distraction force is unknown.

Measure resection is obviously not void of potential errors. Especially in case of dysplasia or prior trauma, bone geometry and landmarks can be deformed. In contrast to ligament assessment however, pre-operative imaging under the form of x-rays or CT allows for an objective and reproducible evaluation of the amount of deformity and subsequent surgical correction.

While a tourniquet is traditionally used to obtain a dry field during primary TKA (and is also thought to reduce peri-operative blood loss), adverse effects of tourniquet use have been reported. Avoiding routine use of the tourniquet during TKA can minimise certain complications while improving the quality of the early result.

Most studies of TKA with and without tourniquet show little difference in all forms of blood loss except for intra-operative. Some studies even show less overall blood loss in groups without tourniquet use. Modern techniques to minimise intra-operative loss have included topical treatments, systemic medications, as well as a bipolar tissue sealer. Visualisation of bleeding vessels and their management intra-operatively can substantially reduce early post-op hemarthrosis.

Tourniquet use has also been related to post-operative thigh pain. This is a negative aspect of tourniquet use that can interfere with physical therapy and rehabilitation. Occasionally it can be a significant factor in post-op recovery. Data supports the fact that avoiding a tourniquet or at least reducing pressure to the minimum necessary may help to reduce post-operative thigh pain.

Ischemia and tissue damage can affect neuromuscular function and rehabilitation following TKA. The time necessary to achieve straight leg raising and knee flexion is delayed by tourniquet use during TKA. Compressive nerve injury also may result in secondary effects of denervation on distal tissues. This denervation can delay recovery of blood flow and increase vessel spasm, hemorrhage and edema. The degree of dysfunction is related to the magnitude of tourniquet compression.

Tension in the lateral retinaculum is directly affected by tourniquet use. Observations from these studies would indicate that lateral release should be performed only if found necessary after tourniquet deflation in order to minimise the potential morbidity that accompanies this procedure.

Although thrombo-embolic events can occur during TKA without, tourniquet use is associated with more frequent events when it is used.

Finally, it is prudent to avoid the use of a tourniquet in patients with vascular calcifications around the knee or abdomen due to advanced arteriosclerosis, previous bypass grafts, or reduced limb or tissue blood supply for any reason. Routine TKA with minimal tourniquet use greatly simplifies its performance in those settings where it is contra-indicated.

Total knee arthroplasty is an operation that can be performed with or without the use of tourniquet. Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the available literature have demonstrated that the use of tourniquet leads to a reduction in blood loss and also shortens the operative time. The opponents for use of tourniquet cite development of complications such as skin bruising, neurovascular injury, and metabolic disturbances as a deterrent for the use of tourniquet. Although the latter may be true for some patients such as those with previous vascular grafts, there is little evidence that routine use of tourniquet during TKA results in any of the above complications. The use of tourniquet on the other hand provides a bloodless field that allows the surgeon to perform the procedure with expediency and optimised visualisation. Blood conservation has gained extreme importance in recent years because of increased understanding of problems associated with blood transfusion such as increased surgical site infection (due to immunomodulation effect), increased length of hospital stay, increased cost and so on. Based on our understanding of the available evidence, we believe that routine use of tourniquet during TKA is justified and a good surgical practice.

Hinges were used early in total knee replacement history. The stems were too short, the trochlear groove was absent or inadequate and the mechanism lacked strength. Hinges, therefore, acquired a very bad reputation.

As the only stems in early knees were on hinges, I used them when necessary, i.e. a completely missing medial collateral ligament, a flexion gap of more than three centimeters with a normal extension gap and missing bone. I used a Guepar II and my results were good up to 20 years when the plastic wore out and the spindle was damaged. By that time, new spindles were not available and the cases had to be revised. Revision of a cemented bowed stem is a nightmare. One would wish, therefore, to have a design, where the bearings could be detached from the stems and a new bearing inserted.

The main problem with hinges nowadays is that they all rotate, or at any rate, all the hinges which I can get, rotate.

The commonest indication for a hinge is the multiply revised knee due to missed tibial torsion. A rotating hinge used in a situation like this results in the patient externally rotating the tibia and subluxating or dislocating the patella. They, therefore, cannot use this knee as the leading leg on any activity and they may have instability or falls as a result of the patellar dislocation.

It is not difficult to block rotation but, so far as I know, no one has done it.

Is there a role for hinge? Very seldom and not with the existing designs.

Non- or semi-constraint TKA implants do have their limitations in the absence of collateral ligaments, severe deformity, large osseous defects and gross flexion - extension instability or mismatch, even in primary TKA. Additionally instability is increasingly recognised as a major failure factor in primary and revision TKA.

Historically most of the first pure hinged TKA implants have shown disappointing results, due to early loosening based on excessive force transmission from the hinge mechanism to the bone-cement interface, used the use of all metal articulation, suboptimal instrumentation or design. Consequently a hinged design was abandoned by most US surgeons. However, some European centres continued with the use of some early European designed pure- and rotating hinged implants.

Although most indication in primary TKA can be solved with modular non- or semi-constrained implants, an adequate balancing might require a relevant soft tissue release or reconstruction with allografts. This consequently increases the complexity and operative time with less predictable results in the elderly patient with principal less healing potential, desirable early post-operative full weightbearing and full range of motion.

Thus potential indications in the elderly for a rotating- or pure hinged implant in primary TKA include: –

Complete MCL instability

While some authors showed excellent survival rates in of 96% after 15 years in primary TKA, some recent studies revealed high complication rates of up to 25%, including a high infection rate of 2.9%. This remains inconsistent with our clinical results in primary TKA, which revealed an overall survival rate in patients over 60 years of 94% after 13 years, while patients < 60 years revealed a survival rate of only 77%. Correlation between survival rate and deformity revealed in varus alignment a survival rate of 97%, whereas in valgus only a rate of 79%. Consequently we strictly reserve a rotational hinge for patients > 60 years with a combined varus alignment, whereas in severe valgus deformities a pure hinged should be used for our implant design.

Limitations of most hinged implants are relatively rare. In our hands the main limitation is hyperextension and weak extensor mechanism, because this leads to early loosenings.

Pre-operative planning in revision total knee replacement is important to simplify the surgery for the implant representative, operating room personnel and the surgeon. In revision knee arthroplasty, many implant options can be considered. This includes cemented and cementless primary and revision tibial and femoral components, with posterior cruciate retention or resection, and either with no constraint, varus/valgus constraint, or with rotating hinge bearings. One may also need femoral and tibial spacers or bulk allograft. It is important to pre-operatively determine which of these implants you may need. If I ask my implant representative to “bring everything you've got, just in case,” I will get 23 pans of instruments, 24 bins of implants composed of 347 boxes of sterile implants, and chaos for everyone.

Occasionally, one may not need to revise all components, so the surgeon needs to be familiar with the implants they are revising. Consider having some or all compatible components available.

Most revision knee implants can be conservatively cemented with diaphyseal engaging press-fit stems. Most importantly, pre-operative physical examination and radiographs are used to determine the status of the collateral ligaments, so that the appropriate constrained implants will be available at surgery. Radiographs will also show the amount and location of bone loss. This will determine if revision type implants, spacers or bone graft will be needed. Radiographically, one can determine the appropriate joint line position relative to the existing femoral component to simplify the surgery. Excellent pre-operative planning will minimises the need to bring in an excessive number of instruments and implants. It will help assure that the patient has a stable revision knee and simplify the surgery for all participants.

Exposure in revision total knee replacement can be quite challenging due to scar formation from one or many previous incisions. Disruption of the patellar or quadriceps tendon during revision must be avoided at all costs and many surgical maneuvers have been described to permit safe exposure in order to remove the implants during the initial stage of reconstruction. Standard manoeuvres include recreation of the medial and lateral gutters, patient dissection to allow the soft tissue to stretch over time and proximal medial exposure of the tibia and release of the semimembranosis tendon insertion.

There are three specialised techniques for exposure during revision total knee replacement: the quadriceps snip as described by Insall, the V-Y quadriceps turndown as described by Coonse and Adams, and the tibial tubercle osteotomy as described by Whiteside.

The quadriceps snip is a proximal lateral extension of the medial arthrotomy used during a standard approach. It is easy to perform and can be used for most revision situations. This is should be the standard first choice for gaining exposure in revision surgery. The V-Y quadriceps turndown is quite extensile and is a combination of a lateral retinacular release connected to the proximal portion of the medial arthrotomy. Although it allows excellent exposure in revision situations, it is associated with extensor weakness and extensor lag. The Whiteside tibial tubercle osteotomy is also a versatile approach. Care should be taken to preserve a lateral periosteal sleeve, and subsequent repair with wire presents the best healing possibility. It is quite elegant in providing access to the proximal tibia to facilitate removal of a well fixed, stemmed tibial component.

Stiffness after knee arthroplasty is an important complication that the orthopaedic surgeon must be prepared to manage. In some cases, patients have a low-pain threshold or unidentifiable etiologic findings with no clinical indicators of septic or aseptic failure, and no radiographic evidence of mechanical complications. Psychosocial issues are important to consider, such as patient motivation and etiologic findings related to a worker's compensation claim. For patients who fail to achieve satisfactory ROM after TKA with no identifiable cause, treatment options may be categorised as non-surgical and surgical interventions. Non-surgical interventions would be physical therapy and pharmaceutical control for pain management. Surgical interventions include non-invasive options such as manipulation under anesthesia, and invasive options such as arthroscopy and mini-arthrotomy. Manipulation under anesthesia is indicated in the TKA that has less than 90° ROM after six weeks, no progression or regression in ROM. A modified technique has evolved for patients with persistent stiffness after standard-technique manipulation. The modified technique uses epidural anesthesia continued for post-operative analgesia, hospital stay of 1–3 days, CPM for 2–3 days, and daily PT. Continuous epidural infusion with local anesthetic is administered to provide complete analgesia, but allows muscle activation to be maintained during the hospital stay. Although open revision is sometimes required, arthroscopic management may be an effective alternative in certain instances, and also is helpful in diagnosis and treatment of other conditions of the knee that include prosthetic loosening and failure, retained cement, loose bodies, and sub-clinical infections. However, the painful TKA without evidence of significant intra-articular pathologic findings does not always respond well to arthroscopic management. Another option is open arthrotomy, done mainly to excise scar tissue. A synovectomy may be done as well. The polyethylene insert may be removed and an examination of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) performed. If the PCL is tight, it can be released and the existing components may be retained. Sometimes the polyethylene liner may be exchanged to a lipped insert to maintain stability. Revision surgery represents another option of treatment that can provide improved results whether manipulation or arthroscopic debridement has been done (14). Revision of one or all components combined with arthrolysis continues to have a role in improvement of ROM and outcomes in the stiff TKA.

For most revision total knee replacement there is associated soft tissue and bone loss. A constrained condylar implant can be useful in improving the stability of the knee after revision. Augmentation is commonly used to deal with bone loss on the femoral and tibial side of the joint. Stems are known to reduce the load at the interface of the femoral and tibial component and transfer the load into the medullary canals. There are problems with using stems in the revision setting, however, which include: (1) increased cost, (2) difficulty with removal should further revision be necessary, (3) violation of the intramedullary canals if infection occurs, (4) increased operating time. For these reasons a CCK implant was developed without stems in 1998. The use of this device must be very selective and it is primarily used for severe valgus deformity in elderly patients. In a revision setting where there is good preservation of femoral and/or tibial bone but the need for increased constraint is present (e.g. unicompartmental, cruciate retaining knee) a CCK without stems can be used with good results. We retrospectively reviewed 36 primary constrained condylar knee implants without stem extensions from 1998 to 2000 in 31 patients with knees in 15° valgus or greater. All patients were followed up for a minimum 10 years (range, 10 to 12 years). One patient had aseptic loosening and needed to be revised with stemmed components at nine years post-surgery. Wear was found in two patients. One patient, with severe rheumatoid arthritis, had infection and required a two-stage re-implantation procedure. Patients who are very active or heavy body weight where stresses may be excessive at the implant bone interface should have stems utilised.

The major causes of revision total knee are associated with some degree of bone loss. The missing bone must be accounted for to insure success of the revision procedure, to achieve flexion extension balance, restore the joint line to within a centimeter of its previous level, and to assure a proper sizing especially the anteroposterior diameter of the femoral component. In recent years, clinical practice has evolved over time with a general move away from a structural graft with an increase in utilisation of metal augments. Alternatives include cement with or without screw fixation, rarely, with the most common option being the use of metal wedges. With the recent availability of highly porous augments, the role of metal augmentation has increased. Bone graft is now predominantly used in particulate form for contained defects with more limited use of structural graft. The role of the allograft-prosthetic composite has become more limited. For the elderly with osteopenia and massive bone loss, complete metal substitution with an oncology prosthesis has become more common.

The degree of bone loss is a major determinant of the management strategy. For contained defects less than 5 mm, cement alone, with or without screw supplementation, may be adequate. For greater than 5 mm, morselised graft is frequently used. For uncontained defects of up to 15 mm or more, metal augmentation is the first choice. Bone graft techniques can be utilised in this setting, however, these are more time consuming and technically demanding with little demonstrated advantage. For larger, uncontained defects, newer generation highly porous augments and step wedges are useful. Large contained defects can be dealt with utilising impaction grafting, similar to the hip impaction grafting technique. Massive distal defects are expeditiously managed with oncology defects in the case of periprosthetic fracture and/or massive osteolysis particularly when combined with osteopenia in an elderly, low demand patient. Surgeons must be familiar with an array of techniques in order to effectively deal with the wide spectrum of bone defects encountered during revision total knee arthroplasty.

There are special circumstances in which revision total knee arthroplasty is not an option. The relative indications for the alternatives to revision TKA are: - Recurrent deep infection - Immunocompromised patient - Extensor mechanism loss - Extensive, non-reconstructable soft tissue loss - High functional demand, young age Remember the three A's as alternatives to revision TKA: arthrodesis, arthroplasty (resection), and amputation. Successful arthrodesis requires elimination of infection, coaptation of bone surfaces and rigid immobilisation. The proper position for arthrodesis is 15 degrees of knee flexion to allow foot clearance. If bone loss is greater than 3 cm fuse the knee in full extension. Avoid hyperextension. Achieve 5 degrees of valgus in correct rotation and use intramedullary instruments from TKA sets for best cuts. External fixation techniques as well as intramedullary internal fixation techniques will be described. Resection arthroplasty is indicated for salvage of an infected total knee when the patient is not a candidate for reimplantation. These patients usually have extensive soft and hard tissue loss. Procedure may be well tolerated and functional. Ancillary support with a long leg drop- lock KAFO increases stability and provides motion. Patients finding resection unacceptable are more likely to accept fusion or amputation; therefore resection may be a staging procedure. Amputation is indicated for failed multiple revisions, intractable or life threatening infection. Also should be indicated when there is a low chance of a successful arthrodesis. Ablate at the lowest level for infection eradication but good maintenance of function. Pedicle muscle flaps can be useful to fill dead spaces. Remember, elderly patients have limited ambulation potential because of high energy requirements of above knee amputation.

To wake up in the morning facing a complex total hip revision can be unpleasant. Modern designs have greatly facilitated dealing with the most difficult revision situations both on the acetabular and femoral side. The surgeon faces blood loss, dislocation, infection, and a litany of other potential complications. Our advances in total hip revision have been outstanding but can pose very complex issues.

Total knee revision on the other hand is easier. The surgeon needs to ask a series of questions pre-operatively and intra-operatively. Pre-operatively, one must know the mechanism of failure. You also need to know “what is missing” in terms of skin, soft tissue, extensor mechanism, bone and ligaments.

Intra-operatively, the surgeon must know the difference between the flexion and extension gap, the position of the joint line, the extent of the bone loss and whether it is load bearing or non-load bearing, the ligamentous stability and the intramedullary shaft. Most modern knee revision designs allow the surgeon to create a paradigm to deal with all of these potential problems.

There, of course, are complex problems of malalignment, periprosthetic fracture and other deformities that add a level of complexity but most of these can be dealt with using standard revision designs without requiring custom prostheses.

Osteotomies around the knee are traditionally templated on 2D plain X-rays. Results are often inaccurate and inconsistent and multiplanar osteotomies are hard to perform. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of virtual three-dimensional CT-based planning and correct execution of osteotomies around the knee with the aid of patient specific surgical guides and locking plates.

Eight consecutive patients with significant malalignment of the lower limb were included in the study. Pre-operative CT scans of the affected limb and the normal contra-lateral side were obtained and 3D models of the patient's anatomy were created, using dedicated software. The healthy contralateral limb was mirrored and geometrically matched to the distal femur or proximal tibia of the healthy side. A virtual opening wedge correction of the affected bone was used to match the geometry of the healthy contralateral bone. Standard lower limb axes measurements confirmed correction of the alignment. Based on the virtual plan, surgical guides were designed to perform the planar osteotomy and achieve the planned wedge opening and hinge axis orientation. The osteotomy was fixed with locking plates and screws. Post-operative assessment included planar X-rays, CT-scan and full leg standing X-rays.

One three-planar, three bi-planar and four single-plane osteotomies were performed. Maximum weightbearing mechanical femoro-tibial coronal malalignment varied between 7° varus and 14° valgus (mean 7.6°, SD 3.1). Corrective angles varied from 7°–15° (coronal), 0°–13° (sagittal) and 0°–23° (horizontal). The maximum deviation between the planned pre-operative wedge angle and the executed post-operative wedge angle was 1° in the coronal, sagittal and horizontal plane. The desired mechanical femorotibial axis on full-leg standing X-rays was achieved in 6 patients. Two patients were undercorrected by 1° and 2° respectively.

Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) is associated with fewer complications, faster recovery and better function than Total Knee Replacement (TKR). However, joint registers demonstrate a higher revision rate, which limit their use. Common reasons for revision include aseptic loosening and pain. Currently most UKRs are cemented; Cementless UKR was introduced to address these problems. In a randomised trial cementless fixation was found to have similar outcome scores but fewer radiolucencies than cemented fixation. It was also quicker and simpler. In a large multicentre cohort study in the hands of experienced surgeons it was found that following cementless UKR the incidence of complications was similar to cemented and there were no additional contra-indications. There were also no complete radiolucencies, which are common after cemented fixation. These studies demonstrate that cementless UKR are safe and effective and achieve better fixation with fewer radiolucencies than cemented UKR. They therefor suggest that cemented fixation should decrease the incidence of revision for aseptic loosening and for pain associated with radiolucency, and as a result the revision rate of UKR in the joint registers should decrease. Preliminary data from the registries demonstrates that this is happening.

Total Knee Arthroplasty has proven to be a successful procedure for improving pain and function. Long-term studies have shown survivorship to be 90% or greater at 20 years. Most patients in those studies were over 60 years old. There has been a large increase in patients under 60 years old who are undergoing knee arthroplasty. Younger patients have much greater demands on the artificial articular surfaces. The average 55 year old is likely to perform two to three time as many gait cycles as the average 65 or 70 year old. Long-term studies demonstrate that polyethylene wear is a major cause of long-term failure.

Newer bearing materials such as cross-linked polyethylenes show promise in reducing wear in THA and more recently in TKA. Femoral component material can significantly influence wear. Studies reveal that in vivo femoral component scratching significantly increases polyethylene wear.

Oxidised Zirconium (OxZr) has been shown to significantly reduce polyethylene wear in knee simulators. The ceramic surface has greater lubricity and is harder. We have examined the in vivo performance on Oxidised Zirconium in several studies. These studies reveal that the harder Oxidised Zirconium femoral surface is much more resistant to scratching than CrCo femurs. Retrieval analysis revealed a 12 fold increase in scratching of CrCo femoral components compared to OxZr. Profilometry analysis of matched pairs of femoral components demonstrates that the surfaces of the CrCo implants significantly roughen over time while the OxZr do not significantly change in vivo. These comparative studies also showed less damage to the tibial polyethylene bearings with the OxZr femoral components compared to CrCo.

Extending longevity of TKA requires improved materials to reduced wear. To optimise this, bearing surfaces must be coupled with improvements in both tibial polyethylene and femoral component materials.

Up until this point in time, total knee replacement implants have relied on standardised sizes and shapes. The design process for the ‘off-the-shelf’ implants has typically involved designing a standard size implant and then scaling the design up and down to provide a series of standard sizes. More recently, some suppliers have paid more attention to providing sizes that meet the particular needs for either women or men, but these implants are largely standard designs with adjustments to the medial to lateral width or the anterior to posterior depth.

To design an implant that not only provides the correct size for every patient's knee, but more importantly to provide an implant that duplicated the patient's exact geometry is the goal. A CT scan is obtained of the patient's lower limb. The CT data is converted into a surface model of the knee joint with proprietary software. The surface model is then utilised to create a near exact match of the articular surface in a knee femoral component. The sagittal geometry is preserved for the medial, trochlear and lateral ‘J’ curves with correction for disease as required. The coronal trochlear and condyle geometries are engineered surfaces that respect the laws of knee design for low contact stress. The bone cuts are individualised for each femoral component based on maximising bone preservation and utilising design rules that are based on finite elemental analysis and fatigue testing. The tibial articular surface geometry is derived from the femoral component. Separate medial and lateral inserts are supplied in varying thicknesses that allow precise balancing of the joint.

Patient specific instrumentation is supplied with the implant that allows either femur first or tibial first techniques.

Most orthopaedic surgeons believe that total knee replacement has superb patient outcomes. Long-term results are excellent, with one study showing 15 year survivorship of 97%. However, our objective assessments of our patients' results are greater than patients' subjective assessments. In a study by Dickstein of total knee patients, one-third were not satisfied even though they were all thought to have had successful results by their orthopaedic surgeons. Noble and Conditt's study showed 14% of patients dissatisfied with their outcome with more than half expressing problems with routine activities of daily living. We are puzzled by this patient dissatisfaction since radiographs usually show normal component alignment and positioning. Perhaps some of these patients have subtle soft tissue imbalance and kinematic maltracking.

Excellent aligned bone cuts can be expected with modern instrumentation, especially if patient specific cutting instruments or computer navigation are used. However, inadequate instrumentation exists for soft tissue balancing. It is usually based on feel and visual estimation. Soft tissue balancing techniques are difficult to teach and perform by a less experienced surgeon.

Smart trials with load bearing and alignment sensors, which can be used with the medial retinaculum closed, will demonstrate the total knee kinematics and quantify soft tissue balance. Graduated soft tissue balancing can be performed while visualising changes in compartment loads. Studies are ongoing with smart trials to establish evidence-based clinical algorithms for soft tissue balancing and document the effects of these techniques on patient satisfaction and long-term outcome.

Component and limb alignment are important considerations during Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). Three-dimensional positioning of TKA implants has an effect on implant loosening, polyethylene stresses, and gait. Furthermore, alignment, in conjunction with other implant and patient variables such as body mass index (BMI) influence osseous loading and failure rates. Fortunately, implant survivorship after TKA has been reported to be greater than 95% at 20 years, despite up to 28% of TKAs having component position greater than 3 degrees from neutral. How good are we at positioning TKA implants? Ritter, et al examined 6,070 primary TKAs and found that from 2–7 degrees of valgus, the failure rate was 0.5% for limb alignment. Importantly 28% of the TKAs were outside the 2–7 degree range in the hands of experienced surgeons. Clearly there is room for improvement in surgical technique, but this improvement must be (1) time efficient and cost effective; (2) have a low complication rate, and (3) be reproducible with a minimal learning curve. A number of technologies have been developed to help surgeons implant and position TKA components including intramedullary guides, patient matched guides based on pre-operative imaging, Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS) based on line-of-sight navigation, and most recently, hand-held navigation. All of these techniques have distinct advantages and disadvantages, but we have found that hand-held navigation in TKA meets the prerequisites. Nam, et al reported the first series with a handheld device in 42 knees, and was able to position 95% of the tibial components within 2 degrees of targeted sagittal slope and 96% within 3 degrees of coronal alignment. Advantages of hand-held navigation include low cost, minimal learning curve, reproducibility surgeon to surgeon, and time efficiency (usually taking less than 3 minutes). The disposable device can be used on all patients with all deformities, including those with retained hardware. Hand held navigation devices create a virtual alignment framework from known osseous landmarks, and this framework is used to position tibial and femoral cutting guides on the bone. Using tibial osseous landmarks, including the ACL footprint proximally and the medial and lateral malleoli distally, the device allows real-time feedback of tibial slope and coronal alignment. On the femur, the device locates and references the centre of rotation of the hip and the centre of the distal femur, which allows for real-time calculation of distal femoral valgus and flexion for the distal femoral cutting block. Receiving three-dimensional, real-time feedback of coronal and sagittal alignment, as well as resection depth, combining limited mechanical instruments aided by hand-held navigation devices is a significant step forward. Thus, this technology represents a significant help to the surgeon and patient.

Common reasons for higher-than-average cost for a total hip arthroplasty are prolonged patient hospitalisation, which can be caused by among other factors, bleeding complications. The incidence of perioperative anemia has direct costs (blood transfusions), but also numerous indirect costs such as longer hospital stays, poor performance in physical therapy, and the potential for blood-borne infection. The incidence of pre-operative anemia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty has been reported to be as high as 44%, while total peri-operative blood loss for total hip arthroplasty may average between 750 and 1,000 mL. Anemia negatively impacts length of stay, patient function during rehabilitation, and patient mortality. Transfusions carry well known risks, including infection and fatal anaphylaxis, which are important factors considering that the transfusion rate has been reported to be as high as 45% and that transfused patients receive, on average, two units of blood.

Methods that have been described in the literature include pre-treatment with erythropoietin, pre-operative hemodilution with intra-operative blood salvage, surgical techniques such as gentle soft tissue handling and meticulous hemostasis, bipolar sealers, intravascular occlusion, hemostatic agents, and early removal of drains.

Pharmacologic approaches include treatment with erythropoietin, iron and folate. Randomised trials have demonstrated reduction in the risk for transfusion in patients treated with erythropoietin. Several studies have established a once-weekly dosing schedule of 40,000 international units (300–600 IU/kg) to be effective, and synergism has been observed in patients treated in combination with iron (ferrous sulfate, 325 mg three times a day). Patients with hemoglobin values between 10 and 14 g/dL are most likely to benefit. Intra-operatively, antifibrinolytics such as tranexamic acid (10 mg/kg) given as a single dose pre-operatively has been shown to decrease blood loss and the transfusion rate. Hypotensive anesthesia also effectively decreases blood loss without impairing renal function, but is technically demanding. Post-operatively, re-infusion drains may reduce the need for transfusions in total hip and total knee arthroplasty, but cannot be used in cases of infection or malignancy.

By minimising peri-operative bleeding and bleeding complications through pre-operative optimisation, intra-operative surgical techniques that minimise blood loss, and post-operative care, patient disposition can be streamlined and delays for patient discharge can be avoided.

I never considered this to be a significant problem if it is noticed. (back to that later)

Aaron Rosenberg's report seems to have agreed, but at the last members' meeting of the Knee Society, Boston, September 2009, others had experience that contradicted my view.

With some experience, ultimately the results were very substantially compromised. This video and presentation show you how to avoid a bad result, actually obtain a perfect result, if you or your student assistant, resident or fellow, bags the MCL.

There are three important points. (1) One needs to recognise the occurrence. (2) The setting is usually varus and so direct end-to-end repair cannot be depended upon. (3) Use of a semitendinosis tenodesis, together with an imperfect, distracted direct repair works perfectly well! (1)

Recognition: The setting is usually varus, but I have had one case in which the chief resident, working with the fellow succeeded in getting the MCL in a valgus knee! In this usually tight varus setting the key feature is that at some point in the case, before component placement, one notices that the exposure is all of a sudden better! Now, the guilty resident or just a passive assisting resident/fellow will usually disagree. The extension space is not so obviously lax, but the flexion space is. Secondly, you do not feel an intact ligament in flexion. And, to prove it I have had to do a little more exposure of the superficial MCL to show the tear. There are at least three mechanisms. Most common is a saw cut. Next is possibly injury with the scalpel or cutting cautery during exposure, and last is damage essentially pre-op by a very sharp medial osteophyte which has thoroughly abraded the ligament.

Laxity in full flexion is not necessarily obvious as the posterior capsular integrity helps hide the instability. Again, the really intact ligament is well felt, and in the situation of laceration, the tibia pulls forward more on the medial side, the medial flexion space opens, and what was usually a tight exposure gets suddenly better.

A presumably key point is not to alter the patient's post-operative regimen! And, to avoid some passive alteration of PT, I advise specifically that the surgeon or those in his/her team do not mention the occurrence to the patient, the family or the PT! I put the whole story in the op-note, and weeks later I will specifically tell the patient what the staple in place is all about.

While advances in the design and fixation of implants have improved the survival and function of total knee replacements, blood loss from the procedure remains a significant concern. It is estimated that 800 mL to 1700 mL of blood is lost during the peri-operative period of a total knee replacement. Accordingly, allogenic blood transfusion following total knee replacement has been reported to be as high as fifty percent. Transfusion of allogenic blood, however, is not without risk, and has been shown to be associated with higher rates of infection, fluid overload, and increased length of stay following total knee replacement.

Topical fibrin sprays applied to the exposed tissues and bony surfaces during total knee replacement has shown promise as an alternative hemostatic option in prior studies. By promoting hemostasis prior to tourniquet deflation, it is thought that post-operative blood loss will be reduced. In addition to reduction of total blood loss from TKA, it is possible that intra-articular hemarthrosis will be reduced, and patients may regain motion more quickly post-operatively.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to compare the total blood volume loss in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty with and without the intra-operative application of a fibrin sealant. Secondary aims included a comparison of the rate of allogenic blood transfusions, post-operative pain scores, and knee range of motion between groups.

There are basically 4 ways advocated to determine the proper femoral component rotation during TKA: (1) The Trans-epicondylar Axis, (2) Perpendicular to the “Whiteside Line,” (3) Three to five degrees of external rotation off the posterior condyles, and (4) Rotation of the component to a point where there is a balanced symmetric flexion gap. This last method is the most logical and functionally, the most appropriate. Of interest is the fact that the other 3 methods often yield flexion gap symmetry, but the surgeon should not be wed to any one of these individual methods at the expense of an unbalanced knee in flexion.

In correcting a varus knee, the knee is balanced first in extension by the appropriate medial release and then balanced in flexion by the appropriate rotation of the femoral component. In correcting a valgus knee, the knee can be balanced first in flexion by the femoral component rotation since balancing in extension almost never involves release of the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) but rather release of the lateral retinaculum. If a rare LCL release is anticipated for extension balancing, then it would be performed prior to determining the femoral rotation since the release may open up the lateral flexion gap to a point where even more femoral component rotation is needed to close down that lateral gap.

It is important to know and accept the fact that some knees will require internal rotation of the femoral component to yield flexion gap symmetry. The classic example of this is a knee that has previously undergone a valgus tibial osteotomy that has led to a valgus tibial joint line. In such a case, if any of the first 3 methods described above is utilised for femoral component rotation, it will lead to a knee that is very unbalanced in flexion being much tighter laterally than medially. A LCL release to open the lateral gap will be needed, increasing the complexity of the case. My experience has shown that intentional internal rotation of the femoral component when required is well-tolerated and rarely causes problems with patellar tracking. It is also of interest to note that mathematical calculations reveal that internally rotating a femoral component as much as 4 degrees will displace the trochlear groove no more that 2–3 mm (depending on the FC size), an amount easily compensated for by undersizing the patellar component and shifting it medially those few mm.

There are basically 3 ways to determine the proper tibial component rotation during TKA: (1) Anatomically cap the tibial cut surface with an asymmetric tibial component, (2) Align the tibial rotation relative to a fixed anatomic tibial landmark (most surgeons use this method and align relative to the medial aspect of the tibial tubercle), (3) Rotate the tibial component to a point where there is rotational congruency in extension between the femoral and tibial articulating surfaces. This third method must be used with fixed bearing arthroplasties (especially with conforming articulations) to avoid rotational incongruency between the components during weight-bearing that can create abnormal and deleterious torsional forces on posterior stabilised posts, insert tray interfaces and bone-cement interfaces. Rotating platform articulations can tolerate rotational mismatch unless it is to a point where the polyethylene insert rotates excessively and causes symptomatic soft tissue impingement.

Loss of the quadriceps tendon, patella, and patellar tendon leaves a major anterior defect that is difficult to close and compromises knee extension strength. Gastrocnemius muscle transfer does not sufficiently cover such major defects. A new surgical procedure is described that transfers the vastus medialis or the vastus lateralis and their tibial attachments, or both muscles and their distal expansions to cover major deficiencies in the anterior knee.

Nine cadaver knee specimens were dissected to ensure that the blood and nerve supply of the muscles would remain intact in the flap transfer. Eight clinical cases were done between 2005 and 2009. Four knees had vastus medialis transfer, two knees required vastus medialis and vastus lateralis transfer, two knees required transfer of the vastus medialis and medial gastrocnemius muscles, and two knees required transfer of both the medial gastrocnemius and medial half of the soleus muscle to close the knee and to secure distal attachment of the vastus transfer.

All patients achieved closure of the knee joint without synovial leaks by 10 days post-operatively. Mean flexion contracture at last follow-up was 3° (range, 0–7°). Mean extension lag was 22° (range, 5–65°). Extension lag was less in those cases that included gastrocnemius or soleus muscle transfer. None of the flaps developed necrosis.

The vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscles are effective as muscle transfers about the knee.

Success in knee revision begins in the office. The initial evaluations determine the implant design and pre-operative diagnosis. The physical examination identifies the presence of instability, stiffness, extensor mechanism malfunction and previous incisions all of which influence the planned procedure. Prior to surgery arrangements are made to have all manner of revision implants, removal tools, and allograft material available.

Removal of implants must be done with a focus on preserving bone stock and the extensor mechanism. Initial exposure involves release of the gutters, lateral subluxation of the patella and removal of the polyethylene insert. These manoeuvres combined with a quadriceps snip provide exposure for implant removal in 80–90% of cases. More extensive exposure options include quadriceps turndown, tibial tubercle osteotomy, medial epicondylar osteotomy and a femoral peel.

Tools needed for implant removal include thin osteotomes, offset osteotomes, thin saws and a high-speed bur. After polyethylene removal the femur followed by the tibia are removed. In many cases the existing well-fixed patellar component can remain. The implant cement or implant bone interface is approached for cemented and cementless implants respectively. Tools are always directed parallel to the fixation surface. Offset osteotomes are helpful gaining access to the femoral notch when femoral pegs prevent access from the sides. Central keels or peripheral pegs can complicate tibial removal. Working completely around the keel from medial and lateral disrupts the peripheral tibial interface leaving just the central posterior metaphysis. Stacked osteotomes or a slap hammer can be used to lift the baseplate from the tibia.