Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is a challenging clinical problem in young patients. Given the possibility of early glenoid component loosening in this population with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and subsequent need for early revision, alternative treatment options are often recommended to provide pain relief and improved range of motion. While nonoperative modalities including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and physical therapy focusing on rotator cuff strengthening and scapular stabilization may provide some symptomatic relief, young patients with glenohumeral OA often need surgery for improved outcomes. Joint preserving techniques, such as arthroscopic debridement with removal of loose bodies and capsular release, with or without biceps tenotomy or tenodesis, remains a viable nonarthroplasty option in these patients.

Clinical studies evaluating the outcomes of arthroscopic debridement for glenohumeral OA in young patients have had favorable outcomes. Evidence suggests that earlier stages of glenohumeral OA have more favorable outcomes with arthroscopic debridement procedures, with worse outcomes being observed in patients with complete joint space loss and bipolar chondral lesions. More advanced arthroscopic options include inferior osteophyte excision and axillary neurolysis or microfracture of chondral lesions, both of which have demonstrated favorable early clinical outcomes.

Patients with some preserved joint space and small osteophytes can avoid arthroplasty and have improved functional outcomes after arthroscopic debridement for glenohumeral OA. Caution should be advised when indicating this procedure for patients with large osteophytes, grade IV bipolar lesions, biconcave glenoids, and complete loss of joint space.

There are a variety of potential causes of shoulder arthritis in young patients including osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, and avascular necrosis. However, the primary etiology in my practice is related to complications of instability surgery or labral repair: thermal or anchor/suture related chondrolysis. The outcomes of arthroscopic debridement have been disappointing in patients with shoulder arthritis with worse results with increasing severity of articular cartilage changes.

Among all joint arthroplasty procedures, patients who undergo shoulder arthroplasty have the youngest average age. Results of hemiarthroplasty (HA) have been approximately 75% to 80% compared to 90% with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

The largest series in the literature on shoulder arthroplasty in young patients is Schoch et al. They reviewed the results of 56 hemiarthroplasties and 19 TSA performed in patients less than 50 years old with a minimum 20-year follow-up or follow-up until reoperation. Both HA and TSA resulted in significant improvements in pain scores (p<0.001), abduction (p<0.01), and external rotation (p=0.02). Eighty-one percent of shoulders were rated much better or better than pre-operatively. Unsatisfactory ratings in HA were due to reoperations in 25 (glenoid arthrosis in 16) and limited motion, pain, or dissatisfaction in 11. Unsatisfactory ratings in TSA were due to reoperations in 6 (component loosening in 4) and limited motion in 5. Estimated 20-year survival was 75.6% (confidence interval, 65.9–86.5) for HAs and 83.2% (confidence interval, 70.5–97.8) for TSAs.

Total shoulder arthroplasty with a cemented polyethylene glenoid is a proven technology with excellent survivorship, even in young, active patients followed for over 20 years.

Despite numerous efforts to avoid cement fixation, uncemented technology has failed to improve survival even in the short and middle term, and in fact has usually yielded worse results at early follow-up – hardly promising that further follow will reveal an advantage.

There have been two approaches – metal-backed designs and all-poly “magic peg” designs. There are two major problems with metal backing: there can be technical issues and fretting failure with snap-fit mechanisms, and the stiff metal backing induces early polyethylene wear. Although some early studies report cautious optimism, larger series with careful, long follow-up have reported poor results. Some have attempted to use less-stiff metal but the value is still unclear. While early results from all-poly uncemented designs have less early failure, the wisdom of having long-term close apposition of polyethylene with bone, the large bone-removal for most large-peg designs, and the unknown long-term mechanical failure mechanisms suggest caution.

Further, early work on eliminating cement was prompted by a desire to avoid “cement disease”, while more recent studies across multiple joints suggest that loosening and bone resorption are more likely due to polyethylene particles than any effect of the cement. Since most uncemented designs stiffen the basic polyethylene surface with larger pegs or metal-backing, the wisdom of the entire effort is debatable. In 2016 optimal glenoid fixation requires cement.

Cement fixation of the glenoid implants in total shoulder arthroplasty has been the norm since the procedure has existed.

Yet, an unacceptably high rate of lucent lines, representing prosthetic loosening, and a high rate of resultant failure of fixation of these implants continues to be the single most common cause for revision surgery in total shoulder arthroplasty. Dissatisfaction with a higher than acceptable rate of lucent lines, cement fixation of the glenoid component has led us to evaluate and employ an implant anchored into the glenoid vault with a woven tantalum (trabecular metal) fixation stem. We have employed this implant in patients with healthy bone stock with a minimum 2-year follow-up in well over 100 cases with only one revision performed in a first generation implant due to fatigue fracture. No cases have demonstrated lucency or loosening.

The procedure does require meticulous attention to detail to ensure precise surface and glenoid vault preparation providing complete intraosseous seating of the trabecular metal anchor and flush apposition and support of the polyethylene surface upon the face of the glenoid. This process has reduced surgical preparation time as well as time required for cement setting by an average of 20 minutes per case.

Total shoulder arthroplasty is becoming increasingly common. A biceps tenodesis or tenotomy has become a routine part of the operation. There are several advantages to a tenodesis or tenotomy. First, the long head of the biceps tendon is routinely pathologic. One study has shown that there are differences in gene expression and mechanical properties in the long head of the biceps tendon in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis. Clinically, we often see inflammation, tearing, adhesions, or other pathology. Second, it is largely accepted that the long head of the biceps tendon has minimal function at the shoulder. The biceps muscle primarily functions at the elbow. Therefore, there is little downside to performing a tenodesis if there is a chance of it generating pain after surgery. Another major reason to perform a tenodesis or a tenotomy is that the technique of total shoulder arthroplasty requires a subscapularis takedown or lesser tuberosity osteotomy. The ligaments and tendon associated with the subscapularis contribute to the stability of the biceps tendon and after subscapularis takedown, it is unlikely that the tendon would remain reduced in the groove. In addition, it is part of a technique to incise and release the rotator interval, additionally creating scarring and/or instability associated with the biceps tendon. Given those reasons, this is a very common and reasonable routine part of the procedure of total shoulder arthroplasty.

We know little regarding the long head of the biceps tendon's function but it is generally felt that it serves as a humeral head stabiliser by resisting superior migration during shoulder elevation. In total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) the long head tendon is most commonly tenodesed as some have reported post-operative pain generated from an intact long head tendon.

How does tenotomy or tenodesis of the long head tendon after TSA effect superior translation of the humeral head? We do not know the answer to this or if this increased tension causes any increase in subscapularis tendon failure. This will be presented as a possible reason to not remove the long head tendon of the biceps during TSA.

Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty has been advocated as an alternative to stemmed humeral component designs given its ability to preserve proximal bone stock. Further, these implants have become more attractive given the possibility of stem-related complications including humeral fracture, stress shielding, and osteolysis; complications that may necessitate fixation, revision to long stem components, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As more total shoulder arthroplasties are performed in younger patient populations, the likelihood of increased revision procedures is inevitable. Maintaining proximal bone stock in these cases with use of a resurfacing arthroplasty not only facilitates explant during revision arthroplasty, but preservation of proximal metaphyseal bone facilitates reimplantation of components. Clinical results of these resurfacing components have demonstrated favorable results similar to stemmed designs.

Unfortunately, resurfacing arthroplasty may not be as ideal as was hoped with regard to recreating native humeral anatomy. Further, resurfacing arthroplasty may increase the risk of peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, and lack of a formal humeral head cut makes glenoid exposure more difficult, which may be associated with a higher degree of neurovascular injury. Stemless humeral components are designed for strong metaphyseal fixation and avoid the difficulty with glenoid exposure seen in resurfacing designs, as these components require a formal humeral head cut.

Early clinical outcomes of a single stemless design demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcome scores, without evidence of component migration, subsidence or loosening. The only mid-term clinical results of stemless design implants are seen with the Arthrex Eclipse system (Arthrex, Naples, FL). In a prospective study involving 78 patients at 5-year follow-up, significant improvements were observed in clinical outcome scores. While there was evidence of proximal stress shielding in an older population, this did not influence shoulder function. The overall revision rate was 9% at 5 years, with no component necessitating revision as a result of humeral component loosening.

Resurfacing arthroplasty and stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty remain attractive options to preserve proximal metaphyseal bone stock, avoiding stem-related complications. Early and mid-term clinical outcomes are comparable to stemmed designs and demonstrate no evidence of humeral component loosening.

Total shoulder arthroplasty results in excellent outcomes for most patients who suffer from osteoarthritis of the shoulder. Current trends within the field reflect a desire to minimise stem lengths in contemporary prosthetic designs. The movement towards short-stem humeral implants proffers several advantages including the ease of revision and ‘less invasive’ surgery. But, is there data to support these claims? This talk will focus on the proposed advantages of short-stem implants, variations in the current designs, the data on their outcomes and other current concepts with these implants.

The results of revision TSA do not historically match the results of primary TSA. This is especially true if the diagnosis is a soft tissue related problem that leads to the revision. When a revision TSA is considered in this setting, instability is the major problem to overcome and a reverse TSA is most often needed. In the past this would require that the glenoid and humeral components be removed. Some manufacturers have produced shoulder prosthetic systems that can be converted to a reverse TSA without removing the humeral stem making the revision surgery potentially easier for both the patient and the surgeon.

The data bank from two academic shoulder services were utilised to compare outcomes of revision TSA with and without removing the humeral stem at the time of revision surgery. Sixty-seven patients were identified in which 22 did not have the stem removed and 45 required the stem to be revised. The pre-operative and post-operative data for 1 and 2 years were available. Codman's scores, range of motion, estimated blood loss, time in the operating room, complications and cost of the implants were evaluated.

The average blood loss was 280 cc vs. 500 cc, 145 minutes vs. 211 minutes, constant scores were 32 pre-op and 75 post-op vs. 32 pre-op and 70 post-op, complications 0 vs. 9 and the cost of the implants were 23% more in the stem removal group.

The results of revision TSA do not match the results of primary arthroplasty. The results of not having to remove the humeral stem when doing a revision arthroplasty vs. using a system that has to remove both components has certain advantages. The overall outcome score are similar, however, the complication rate, blood loss, time in the operating room and cost of the implants are significantly less.

A reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become increasingly common for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. A reverse shoulder arthroplasty is indicated especially in older and osteopenic individuals in whom the osteopenia, fracture type or comminution precludes fixation. However, there are many other ways to treat proximal humerus fractures and many of these are appropriate for different indications. Percutaneous pinning remains an option in certain surgical neck or valgus impacted proximal humerus fractures with minimal or no comminution at the medial calcar. In general, a fracture that is amenable to open reduction and fixation should be fixed. Open reduction and internal fixation should be the gold standard treatment for three-part fractures in younger and middle-aged patients. Four-part fractures should also be fixed in younger patients. Hemiarthroplasty results are less predictable as they are very dependent on tuberosity healing. While a reverse shoulder replacement may be considered in patients with severe comorbidities, patients always have better outcomes in the setting of an appropriately reduced and stably fixed proximal humerus fracture.

CT-based three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative imaging along with 2D orthogonal sections defined by the plane of the scapula (axial, sagittal and coronal planes) has been demonstrated by many research groups to be a very accurate way to define the bone pathology and alignment/subluxation of the humeral head in relationship to the center line of the scapula or the center of the glenoid fossa. When 3D CT imaging is combined with 3D implant templating the surgeon is best able to define the optimal implant and its location for the desired correction of the bone abnormalities. The use and value of 3D imaging is best when the there is more severe bone pathology and deformity.

Transferring the computer-based information of implant location to the surgical site can involve multiple methods. The three methods discussed in the literature to date including use of standard instrumentation in a manner specified by the pre-operative planning, use of single-use patient specific instrumentation and use of reusable patient specific instrumentation. Several cadaver and sawbone studies have demonstrated significant improvement in placement of the glenoid implant with both single use and reusable patient specific instrumentation when compared to use of 2D imaging and standard instrumentation. Randomised clinical trials have also shown that 3D planning and implant templating is very effective in accurate placement of the implant in the desired location using all three types of instrumentation.

The optimal use of this technology is dependent upon the severity of the pathology and the experience and preference of the surgeon. With more severe pathology and less surgeon experience 3D pre-operative imaging and templating and use of some level of patient specific instrumentation provides more accurate placement of the glenoid implant.

Accurate glenoid component placement continues to be a challenge. Knowledge that glenoid loosening is affected by malpositioning of the glenoid component has led to the development of patient specific instrumentation (PSI) in an attempt to optimise glenoid positioning. The ideal PSI would be reusable, reliable, cost-effective and robust enough to tolerate the stresses applied by the surgeon in the context of difficult glenohumeral exposure. The VIP system is a CT scan-based PSI with a reusable instrument. The subtle nuances of pre-operative planning will be discussed in a separate short video.

The live surgery will incorporate use of the patient specific instrumentation during glenoid placement and the use of a short stemmed fourth generation total shoulder arthroplasty.

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in shoulder arthroplasty, due to the indolent nature of the common infecting organisms. Proprionobacterium acnes (P. acnes) is the most common pathogen cultured in revision shoulder arthroplasty. It is a slow growing, anaerobic organism – requires longer incubation period (7–21 days). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (CNSS) is also a common organism responsible for PJI.

Established diagnostic tests for hip and knee PJI are often negative in the shoulder despite post-operative growth of intra-operative cultures. Pre-operative synovial aspiration often low volume due to indolent pathogens and successful aspiration is often reported to be 50% or less with Dilisio et al, JBJS 2014: reporting 16.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity. Variable culture length for P. acnes culture protocols are reported from 7–28 days with most groups recommending 14 days.

From our research, we demonstrated time to culture growth was significantly shorter in probable true positive culture group (median, 5 vs. 9 days, p=0.002). Frozen section analysis may help intra-operative decision-making (one- vs. two-stage reimplantation) yet the reported sensitivity and specificity in shoulder arthroplasty is far less than in hip and knee arthroplasty. Synovial fluid biomarkers have been identified as part of the innate response to pathogens include pro-inflammatory cytokines and antimicrobial peptides. In a series of prospective studies of revision shoulder arthroplasty, synovial fluid analysis reported by Frangiamore et al, JBJS 2015: IL-6, Frangiamore et al, JSES 2015: α-defensin (Synovasure^TM), Frangiamore et al, AAOS 2015: Broader cytokine analysis it was demonstrated that these markers are much more predictive of infection than synovial fluid cultures, frozen section or serum markers.

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

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

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

Peri-prosthetic fractures occurring in total shoulder arthroplasty represent surgical challenges both in decision making as well as surgical management.

These fractures can involve both the humerus and scapula. In a few cases with minimal displacement conservative care may be employed.

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

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

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has improved the lives of many patients with complex shoulder pathology including rotator cuff arthropathy, glenoid bone defects, post-traumatic arthritis and failed non-constrained total shoulder arthroplasty. However, this non-anatomic replacement has a very different complication profile than has been observed with non-constrained shoulder arthroplasty and the revision of RTSA can be extremely challenging. The purpose of this talk is to review some of the typical complications observed in RTSA including instability, infection, stress fractures, peri-prosthetic fractures and glenoid failures, and discuss the treatment options for dealing with these difficult problems.

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

Overstuffing of the joint and proud humeral heads have been most associated with clinical failure. The efforts to avoid this can be divided into two camps:

The anatomic school, who believe an experienced surgeon can divine the correct anatomy that existed before the distortions of arthritis began, and that the surgeon should make free-hand cuts and alignments to restore the normal anatomy

A variety of challenging shoulder pathology will be presented to a panel of expert shoulder surgeons for their diagnostic evaluation, decision making, surgical management and aftercare.

They will discuss the decision making processes and management options to consider in striving to obtain optimal outcomes.

Scapular spine fracture is a serious complication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) often caused by a fall on an outstretched arm or a forced movement to the shoulder. The incidence of scapular fractures occurring after RTSA is reported between 5.8% and 10.2%. These fractures have been classified into 3 discrete fracture patterns. Avulsion of the anterior acromion (Type I), Acromion fractures (Type II) and Scapular spine fractures (Type III). This discussion will review the incidence of these post-operative peri-prosthetic fractures of the scapula after reverse TSA and describe potential treatment options and prevention methods to avoid this complication.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) was designed to treat the cuff-deficient shoulder with arthritis and irreparable rotator cuff tears of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons. The results of RTSA in this patient population have been very good and reliable in the majority of cases. However, it has also been reported that patients whose rotator cuff tear involves the supraspinatus, infraspinatus and teres minor and who demonstrate a ‘horn-blower's sign’ do very poorly if a muscle transfer is not performed to improve external rotation in these shoulders in abduction. The loss of the teres minor in these patients results in grave difficulty for the patient attempting to perform their activities of daily living even if they can obtain reasonable good forward flexion. The muscle transfer that is most commonly used for these select patients is a latissmus dorsi tendon transfer in conjunction with RTSA. The purpose of this talk is to review the pathology of this problem and review the technique for its surgical treatment.

The standard approach is through the deltopectoral interval. Among patients with prior incisions, one makes every effort to either utilise the old incision or to incorporate it into a longer incision that will allow one to approach the deltopectoral interval and retract the deltoid laterally. The deltopectoral interval is most easily developed just distal to the clavicle, where there is a natural infraclavicular triangle of fat that separates the deltoid and pectoralis major muscles even in very scarred or stiff shoulders. Typically, the deltoid is retracted laterally leaving the cephalic vein on the medial aspect of the exposure. The anterior border of the deltoid is mobilised from the clavicle to its insertion on the humerus. The anterior portion of the deltoid insertion together with the more distal periosteum of the humerus may be elevated slightly.

The next step is to identify the plane between the conjoined tendon group and the subscapularis muscle. Dissection in this area must be done very carefully due to the close proximity of the neurovascular group, the axillary nerve, and the musculocutaneous nerve. Scar is then released from around the base of the coracoid. The subacromial space is freed of scar and the shoulder is examined for range of motion. Particularly among patients with prior rotator cuff surgery, there may be severe scarring in the subacromial space. Internal rotation of the arm with dissection between the remaining rotator cuff and deltoid is critical to develop this plane.

If external rotation is less than 30 degrees, one can consider incising the subscapularis off bone rather than through its tendinous substance. For every 1 cm that the subscapularis is advanced medially, one gains approximately 20 to 30 degrees of external rotation. The rotator interval between the subscapularis and supraspinatus is then incised. This release is then continued inferiorly to incise the inferior shoulder capsule from the neck of the humerus. This is performed by proceeding from anterior to posterior with progressive external rotation of the humerus staying directly on the bone with electrocautery and great care to protect the axillary nerve.

The key for glenoid exposure as well as improvement in motion is deltoid mobilization, a large inferior capsular release, aggressive humeral head cut and osteophyte removal.

Analysis of orthopaedic malpractice claims has shown that highest impact allegations (highest payment dollars per claim) were those that were related to failure to protect anatomic structures in surgical fields. The prevalence of subclinical peripheral neurologic deficit following reverse and anatomic shoulder arthroplasty has been reported to be 47% and 4%, respectively. We propose the following five rules in order to avoid neurovascular injury during shoulder arthroplasty cases:

Pre-operative planning would assure a smooth operation without intra-operative difficulties. Adequate planning would include appropriate imaging, obtaining previous operative reports, complete pre-operative neurovascular examination and requesting the necessary operative equipment.

Neuromonitoring has been utilised in shoulder surgery in the past. Nagda et al showed that nerve alerts during shoulder arthroplasty occurred 56.7% of the time and 50% of the events were with the arm in abduction, external rotation and extension; 76.7% of signals returned to normal with retractor removal and change in arm positioning. We recommend removing all retractors and returning the arm to neutral position several times during surgery, especially during the glenoid exposure when the arm is in abduction and external rotation.

Newer commercially available nerve stimulators are extremely useful in locating and protecting neurovascular structures. We recommend brachial plexus exploration and axillary nerve dissection with the aid of a nerve stimulator in all revision cases.

Availability of a nerve/microvascular surgeon as an assistant in revision cases for brachial plexus exploration using a microscope is crucial for successful revision surgery.

Humeral head size is defined by the radius of curvature and the thickness of the articular segment. This ratio of radius to thickness is within a narrow range with an average of 0.71. The articular surface of the normal humeral head measured within the AP plane is defined by three landmarks on the non-articular surface of the proximal humerus. The perfect circle concept can be applied for assessment of the anatomic reconstruction of the post-operative x-rays and more importantly can be used intra-operatively as a guide when choosing the proper prosthetic humeral head component. The humeral head is an elliptical shape with its AP dimension being approximately 2 mm less than the SI dimension. This shape contributes to the roll and translation of the normal shoulder but is not replicated by the spherical shape of the prosthetic humeral head.

The glenoid vault has a consistent 3D shape and use of the vault model within 3D planning software can define the patient's pre-morbid anatomy, specifically the location of the joint line and patient specific version and inclination. Use of this tool can assist the surgeon in defining the optimal implant and its location. In patients with little or no bone loss, a symmetric glenoid implant is often ideal for resurfacing. When there is asymmetric bone loss, often seen posteriorly with osteoarthritis, an asymmetric posteriorly augmented component can improve the ability to correct the deformity while maintaining the native joint line. It is suggested that these augmented implants in selected patients will help restore and maintain humeral alignment and lessen the risk for residual posterior humeral head subluxation and eccentric loading of the glenoid component.

Aging of Population – Baby Boomers, Millennials, Generation X

Burden of TJR in USA – Estimated ∼ 4 million US adults currently live with TKR (4.2% of the population aged 50 or older) – Females (4.8%); Males (3.4%)

Prevalence increased with increasing age

Estimated lifetime risk of primary TKR – 7.0% for males, 9.5% for females

Changes in Resident Education – Resident Work Hour Restrictions

Changes in Fellowship Education – Presumed shortage of fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons, BWH Data

Changes in Healthcare Paradigm – Hospital – Margin/Mission, Efficiency, Contribution Margin, Ambulatory Centers

Academic/Community Practice – Revenue Driven, Diminished Education/Research Incentive

Arthroplasty Education – Time Restraints, Surgical Volume, Exposure to Options – CR/CS TKR, Revision TKR/THR, Femoral Cementing in THR

“Mind's EYE”

CME Training/Evidence-Based Medicine

Learn Basic Principles of Arthroplasty

“Be Neither the First nor Last to Embrace a New Technology”

“Always Act in the Best Interests of Your Patient”

Total knee replacements (TKRs) are being more commonly performed in active younger and obese patients. Fifteen year survivorship studies demonstrate that cemented total knee replacements have excellent survivorship, with reports of 85% to 97%. However, inferior survivorship occurs in younger patients and obese patients who would be expected to place increased stress on the bone cement interfaces. Cementless fixation for total knee replacement has not gained widespread utilization due to the plethora of poor results reported in early series. These poor results do not reflect that cementless fixation is not obtainable, since an almost universal acceptance of cementless fixation for total hip replacement has shown. A Cochrane database study of total knees with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) demonstrated that the risk of future aseptic loosening should be 50% less with cementless fixation. The poor initial results with cementless total knee replacement have occurred due to poor implant designs such as cobalt chrome porous interfaces, poor initial tibial component fixation, lack of continuous porous coating, poor polyethylene, and use of metal-backed patellae.

I have used cementless fixation for total knee replacements for young, active, and heavy patients since 1986 when durability over 20 years is desirable. My series of over 1,000 cementless TKRs represents about 20% of the total knees I have performed from 1986 to 2015. I have seen failures in my series due to the initial use of metal-backed patellae with thin polyethylene and use of screws and femoral and tibial components which provide access to the metaphyseal bone for polyethylene wear debris. Overall failures were still significantly low due to the use of highly porous titanium surfaces on the tibial and femoral components. Isolated aseptic loosening only occurred on one tibial component in my entire series. With the advent of utilizing implants with continuous porous surfaces and highly cross-linked polyethylene, and elimination of use of metal-backed patellae and tibial screws, I have only had one revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis in the last 760 cases performed since 2002.

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

Loosening is generally the most common reason for revision TKA. In the AOA NJR, the rate of revision varies depending on fixation. Cemented fixation has a lower rate of revision than cementless fixation; 6.7% vs. 8.2% at 14 years. Loosening does occur more frequently in younger patients and in males. Tibial component loosening is the most common. There is an opportunity for improvement. More durable fixation can be achieved through improved cement technique.

De-bonding of the tibial baseplate from the cement is the mechanism of failure in up to 2.9% of total knee prostheses. Among seven surgeons at one center, there was a 6.4-fold range (0.7%-4.5%) in the occurrence of such loosening with the same prosthesis. This surgeon-related variability in tibial component de-bonding suggests that surgical technique influences loosening rates. In a laboratory study, earlier application of cement to metal increases bond strength (p<0.01) while later application reduces bond strength (p<0.05). Fat contamination of the tibial tray-cement interface reduces bond strength, but application of cement to the underside of the tibial tray prior to insertion substantially mitigates this (p<0.05).

The anatomic resection approach is based on the patient's unique anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage or bone loss. The femoral component is aligned around the primary transverse distal femoral axis around which the tibia follows a multi-radius of curvature. The tibia cut is made according to the patient's native anatomy adjusting for worn cartilage and bone loss, and applying an anatomic amount of tibial slope. This technique minimises the need for ligamentous releases to a large degree preserving the competence of the patient's soft tissue. Ligament and capsular releases can be used in difficult cases. Adjustments for the natural varus up to 3 degrees and slope of the tibial bone cut (3 – 10 degrees) further aids in knee balancing. The final alignment may not agree with a neutral hip-knee-ankle mechanical alignment on full length standing x-rays, leaving varus knees in slight varus, and valgus legs in neutral. Since little or no balance is required, this operation can be performed efficiently.

Personalise the reconstruction and alignment as much as possible for each patient. The traditional “one size fits all” method where all patients have a center hip, knee, and ankle alignment needs to be reevaluated and reserved for the valgus leg.

Introduction: I always aim for neutral mechanical axis alignment. My principles of a successful TKA are proper alignment in all 3 planes, soft tissue balance in extension first, flexion gap balancing by parallel to tibial cut technique, maintenance of joint line, correct sizing of femoral component, and proper cement fixation.

Long-term Survivorship: There is long-term data that supports the efficacy and durability of the neutral position of proximal tibial cut. Over a 20-year follow-up there was a 92.6% success rate in my study. Other authors have found similarly successful survivorship for mechanical failure.

Balance Technique in TKR: My technique to balance the knee is a balance extension gap first, which requires medial soft tissue balancing. Next, I balance the flexion gap parallel to the tibial cut.

Our Results: In one study, I examined the clinical and radiographic data of 68 varus knees. Average post-operative mechanical alignment was 0 ± 3 degrees. There were no outliers which displays the reproducibility of the technique. This is the method of choice in the hands of most surgeons.

Approximately 20% of patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty complain of severe pain in the contralateral knee, and 10% of patients who have had a primary total knee (TKA) undergo contralateral surgery within 1 year.

The number of patients suitable for primary TKA is rising, and so is the need for simultaneous bilateral TKA (BTKA) procedures. The advantages of single-stage BTKA include its low complication rates, high patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Others believe that there is increased morbidity and mortality.

The goal of reducing the exposure to repeated anaesthesia, total hospitalization and recovery time, and cost, while maintaining patient safety, is a laudable one. Our data suggest that bilateral TKA patients have a lower total operating time, use less pain medication, have a shorter hospital stay and lower overall treatment costs.

The cohort of patients selected for bilateral surgery in our unit is younger and has fewer comorbidities than unilateral controls. They have a high satisfaction rate and no increase in complication or readmission rates. We have seen a higher blood transfusion rate but no increase in cardiac, thromboembolic or septic complications.

The key to BTKA is patient selection and the implementation of efficient care and surgical pathways that includes a thorough pre-assessment, careful education and well-resourced aggressive post-operative physiotherapy. When appropriately applied, the benefits include a shorter overall recovery time and an accelerated return to everyday life and work.

For 3 decades surgeons have vigorously debated whether it is reasonable to offer simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement (TKA) to patients. Even after this substantial period of time there remain no randomised clinical trials that have addressed this issue and thus, it remains difficult to fully evaluate both the relative risks and the absolute risks of bilateral simultaneous versus staged bilateral knee replacement. What has emerged over the past couple of decades, however, is an understanding that there is a subset of patients with substantial comorbidities such as pre-existent cardiac disease and advanced age for whom bilateral simultaneous knee replacement seems unwise. For younger or otherwise healthy patients the debate continues in 2016 and seems to be focused less on the data itself than on how individual surgeons come to reconcile the differences between Relative Risk and Absolute Risk. When data is pooled from multiple retrospective studies of simultaneous versus staged bilateral TKA there are 2 clear trends that appear in the data. First, the relative risk of certain substantial complications (cardiac, thromboembolic, neurologic, gastrointestinal, and death) seems to be higher after simultaneous bilateral TKA than after staged bilateral TKA. Oakes and Hanssen highlighted these differences in Relative Risk noting that for each of those 5 outcomes there was a 2 to 5 times greater incidence of these complications after bilateral versus unilateral TKA. At the same time, however, it is clear that for most medically uncomplicated patients the Absolute Risk of a major complication is still fairly low — it is likely that >93% of such patients can undergo simultaneous bilateral TKA without encountering a major complication. Individual surgeons and individual patients often view those kinds of statistics in markedly disparate ways. One set of surgeons and patients will view the Relative Risk as most important and be decidedly concerned about the 2–5 times higher risk of certain complications. Another set of patients and surgeons will look at the Absolute Risk as most important and determine that it is decidedly most likely (>93%) that an individual healthy patient will make it through bilateral simultaneous TKA without major medical complications. Overall the conclusions of Oakes and Hanssen from a decade ago remain relevant in 2016: the overall risk of a peri-operative complication is higher with simultaneous bilateral TKA … and this is particularly true for the risk of peri-operative death. While some surgeons and some patients will decide that the increases in Relative Risk is offset by the fairly low Absolute Risk of complications and thus, feel comfortable with bilateral simultaneous TKA, other patients and other surgeons will not.

Total joint arthroplasty is an extremely high quality medical intervention with measured benefit to individual patients and society as a whole. However, nearly 20% of patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may report some level of dissatisfaction following surgery. Weight-bearing-in-flexion activities such as squatting and ascending/descending stairs are those activities with which patients most frequently report dissatisfaction.

It is assumed that optimal functioning following TKA requires proper femoral and tibial implant positioning in all planes (sagittal, coronal, and axial), proper femoral-tibial balance in the coronal and sagittal plane and durable fixation irrespective of implant design and the manner in which the surgery is executed. Posterior stabilised (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) TKA designs are the most predominant implants utilised yet their kinematics are infrequently close to normal. In addition, there is little clinical evidence that one design is superior to another. Alternative designs such as bi-cruciate and medially stabilised designs are much less frequently used and much less frequently studied. However, in both cases, isolated centers with relatively small volumes of patients studied have reported outcomes superior to PS and CR designs depending on the metric assessed.

With respect to kinematics, bi-cruciate and medially stabilised designs have displayed certain patterns of behavior that more closely mimic the native knee both in-vitro and in-vivo. Normal knee kinematics, as described by Freeman and Pinskerova, includes lateral sided femoral rollback with progressive knee flexion (alternatively thought of as internal tibial rotation with flexion) and sagittal plane stability achieved through the medial compartment. In theory, both optimal sagittal plane stability and internal tibial rotation with progressive flexion (consistent with normal dynamic changes in tibial tubercle – trochlear groove distance) following TKA should optimise weight-bearing-in-flexion kinematics and load transfer. Patient-related satisfaction with such activities might thus reasonably improve and may help explain the separate findings of Pritchett and Hossain regarding outcomes following medially stabilised TKA.

Medially stabilised TKA affords sagittal plane stability in mid-flexion and internal tibial rotation with flexion without the complexity and unique failure modes seen following bi-cruciate TKA. The work flow of performing medially stabilised TKA is similar to PS and CR surgical techniques and the surgeon need not climb a steep learning curve. In addition, similar to PS TKA, medial stabilised TKA is applicable to any primary state in which coronal plane balance can be achieved.

Further investigation in well-designed trials is necessary to fully develop an understanding of how different contemporary TKA designs might impact patient reported outcome. Larger registry populations of medially stabilised TKA over time are also necessary to best assess survivorship compared to other contemporary designs.

In replacing the human knee, we attempt to reproduce the stability of the normal knee so that the knee will feel as close to normal as possible to the patient. To answer the question, “Which features matter?” we must first examine the stability of the normal knee. Compliance and stiffness: Stability is measured as “force-displacement” behavior. That is, a force is applied to the knee and the relative motion is measured. Engineers refer to the curves generated by this type of experiment as “stiffness”. Because stiffness is not a term that orthopaedists like to hear when referring to a knee, the inverse term “compliance” often is used. Ligament stress-strain: The force-displacement test for ligaments is called a “stress-strain” curve and shows three regions of force-displacement response. Early in loading a small force causes considerable displacement. This is called the “toe region” of the curve. After a certain amount of displacement, the ligament enters the “elastic region” of the curve and becomes markedly more stiff. Finally, if enough force is applied, the ligament begins to fail at its “yield point”. Ligaments “live” in the toe region of the stress-strain curve. This can be seen clinically when, in response to varus-valgus and anteroposterior stress, the tibia moves relative to the femur until it is stopped by tension in the ligament. This is the ligament moving from the toe region into the elastic region. Compliance of the knee: In a number of studies done in the 1970s, the compliance of the knee was found to be least to both varus-valgus and anteroposterior loads in full extension. In flexion, compliance increases particularly to varus-valgus stress. This implies that the ligamentous structures about the knee are most tight in extension and become more lax in flexion. When external load is applied to the knee, either in the form of muscle contraction or bearing weight, the compliance of the knee decreases (i.e., it becomes more stiff and more stable). Loading will decrease the tension in the ligaments, yet the knee is less compliant. The only way this can happen is by the geometry of the surfaces imparting the stability. The conclusion from these studies is that the human knee, when moving in the usual plane of motion, is stabilised by the geometry of the surfaces, or the congruency of the femur and tibia. Ligaments are recruited to limit motion when forces outside the plane of motion (“out-of-plane” loads) are applied to the knee. These loads move the knee ligaments from the toe region into the elastic region of their stress-strain curve.

Two kinds of total knee prosthesis design: Most total knees are designed to have little or no congruence between the femur and tibia, likely because of the worry about “kinematic conflict” that dates to the four-bar-linkage model of knee motion first proposed by Zuppinger in 1907. In these types of total knees, the ligaments are tensioned (i.e., “balanced”) so that they do the job done in the normal knee by congruence. A few total knees are designed for congruence between the femur and tibia, either in just the medial compartment or in both compartments. The answer to the question, “What is needed for total knee stability?” For non-congruent knee prostheses, the ligaments must be balanced or tensioned into the elastic portion of the stress-strain curve so that the knee is stable. The ligaments must remain in the elastic region indefinitely or the knee will be unstable. For congruent knee prostheses, the ligaments can be left in the toe region and rely, similar to the normal knee, on the geometry of the surfaces to provide stability and allow the ligaments to be recruited for out-of-plane loads. The ligaments must not be left too loose, lest the knee be unstable to out-of-plane loads but must not be as tight as is done with ligament tensioning prostheses.

In the USA, 34.9% of adults are currently obese (BMI > 30). Growth in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is outpacing growth in total hip arthroplasty (THA) largely due to a differential utilization of TKA in overweight patients in the USA. In a recent study, 54.5% of patients reporting to arthroplasty clinics in the USA were obese. From 2006–2010, 61.2% of primary unilateral TKA patients in the USA ACS-NSQIP database were obese. Arthroplasty surgeons are directly affected by the obesity epidemic and need to understand how to safely offer a range of peri-operative care for these patients in order to insure good clinical outcomes.

Pre-operative care for the obese patient involves nutritional counseling, weight loss methods, consideration for bariatric surgery, physical therapy, metabolic workup, and diagnosis and management of frequent comorbid conditions (OSA, DM2, HTN, HLD). Obese patients must also be counseled on their increased risk of complications following TKA.

In the operating room, several steps can be taken to insure success when performing TKA on obese patients. We recommend performing TKA without the use of a tourniquet in order to prevent fat necrosis and increased pain. The incision is made in 90 degrees of knee flexion, atypically midline proximally and curved distally to the midpoint between the tubercle and the medial edge of the tibia. Care is used to minimise the creation of dead space, and the approach to the knee is an extensile medial parapatellar incision. Closure is in multiple layers. The use of negative pressure dressing following surgery can minimise the early wound drainage that is frequently seen after TKA in obese patients.

Post-operative care of the obese patient following TKA involves several unique considerations. Chronic pain and obesity are frequent comorbid conditions and post-operative pain control regimens need to be tailored. Although the physical therapy regimen does not differ in obese patients, obese patients are more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility.

Obese patients have a higher rate of all complications compared to healthy weight. All infection and deep infection increased in obese patients in large meta-analysis. Patients with BMI > 35 are 6.7 times more likely to develop infection after TKA. Patients with BMI > 40 have a 3.35 times higher rate of revision for deep infection than those with BMI < 35. The odds ratio for major complications increases dramatically beyond BMI > 45.

Although there are a few studies that have demonstrated worse clinical outcome in obese patients following TKA, most studies show no difference in clinical outcomes at short- or long-term follow-up. The arthroplasty surgeon must optimise the obese patient prior to surgery, use intra-operative techniques to maximise success, and anticipate potential problems in the post-operative course in order to achieve success with TKA in obese patients.

Extra-articular deformity may be present in patients requiring TKA. Underlying causes include trauma, metabolic bone disease, congenital deformity, or prior osteotomy. Patients with intra-articular deformity can have a combination of intra-articular bone loss and concomitant ligament contraction which can be managed in the standard fashion. In these cases establishing appropriate limb alignment and management of bone loss coincide well with the standard ligament balancing employed to provide a stable knee.

However, if extra-articular deformity is not corrected extra-articularly, it must be corrected by a compensatory distal femoral or proximal tibial resection to reproduce appropriate limb alignment. Complex instabilities may result from this type of wedge resection because it occurs between the proximal and distal attachments of the collateral ligaments and so produces asymmetrical ligament length alterations.

Femoral compensatory wedge resection for extra-articular deformity produces extension instability without affecting the flexion gap and so femoral deformities are POTENTIALLY more difficult to correct than tibial deformities where the compensatory tibial cut influences flexion AND extension equally. Lack of access to the intramedullary canal (as well as increased complexity of producing appropriately placed bone cuts) may be managed with computer guidance or patient specific instruments.

The closer a deformity is to the knee, the greater its importance and the effect on the surgical correction. This is a directly proportional relationship, so that as the apex of the deformity moves from juxta-articular to more distant, the amount of corrective wedge needed to re-align the limb decreases proportionally.

Rotatory deformities are complex and most commonly effect extensor mechanism tracking. In general the effect is similar to any other deformity in that proximity to the knee increases the likelihood that it will have a significant local effect. In general, these deformities are clinically, and radiographically more subtle and so must be searched for. They should be managed by an attempt to restore normal rotational parameters of the bone itself or appropriate compensation of component rotation in relation to the bone.

As prosthetic constraint increases one may need to use intramedullary stems. Their use may be compromised by the deformity. Finally, the younger the patient and the more severe the deformity the more likely I am to treat the deformity by correction at the site of the deformity rather than compensating with abnormal bone resections. The older the patient and the milder the deformity (or the amount of wedge correction required) the more likely I am to manage the deformity with intra-articular correction and increased TKA constraint.

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 a clot that has already been formed. It is useful to note that TXA does not promote the formation of a clot, it simply limits the breakdown of already established clots. 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 Minimizing 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. 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 16 years: 1 gram IV over 10 minutes prior to incision (delivered at same time as pre-operative 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.

Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is convenient for the surgeon and provides a bloodless field for expeditious surgery and a dry field for cementation, but can best be described as an orthopaedic tradition. It is logical for complex anatomy of ligament, nerve, and vessel surgery but it may not be necessary for TKA. In one recent randomised trial, the absence of the tourniquet was not found to affect the quality of cement fixation. There are numerous potential downsides to the use of a tourniquet including decrease range of motion, delayed recovery, increased pain, wound complications, micro-emboli, neuropathy, and increased VTE. There are also a number of complications associated with the use of a tourniquet including arterial thrombosis, skin irritation below the tourniquet, post-operative hyperemia, blood loss, less accurate intra-operative assessment, and it complicates intravenous drug administration. Studies of range of motion have shown that when there is a difference noted, the range of motion is consistently better without tourniquet use. When a tourniquet is utilised it has been found to be advantageous to only use the tourniquet for a minimal amount of the case, typically when cementing is performed. Functional strength has also been found to be improved without the use of a tourniquet. In a recent randomised trial, tourniquet use was associated with decreased quad strength at 3 weeks that persisted at 3 months. This was attributed to muscle damage, tourniquet-induced ischemia, and compressive injury. Increased peri-operative pain has also been reported in randomised trials associated with the use of a tourniquet. Edema, swelling, and limb girth issues have also been noted to be associated with tourniquet use. Exsanguinating a limb will result in swelling approximately 10% of the original volume half due to a return of blood, and half due to reactive hyperemia. Longer tourniquet times are also associated with increased wound drainage and more wound hypoxia as measured by transcutaneous oxygen levels. Tourniquet use has also been associated with embolic phenomenon with several times greater risk of large emboli. In one study where quantitative MRI was utilised on both thighs after unilateral total knee replacement with and without a tourniquet, the tourniquet group showed more atrophy with a loss of 20% of the volume compared to the normal side in total knees performed with a tourniquet which also performed clinically worse. There is a small but substantial risk of arterial thrombosis particularly in patients that have atherosclerotic plaque. Ironically there is a risk of increased post-operative blood loss due to the post-tourniquet “blush” as the blood pressure and pain increase hours after a surgical procedure is completed. There is also difficulty in identifying and coagulating posterior and lateral geniculate vessels with the components in place. Utilizing a tourniquet also interferes with intra-operative assessment of patella tracking, range of motion, ligament stability, and gap balancing. Randomised clinical trials have concluded that there is less pain and quicker recovery without the use of a tourniquet. There have also been reports of less swelling, increased range of motion, less analgesic use and better clinical outcome when a tourniquet is not utilised. A meta-analysis of systematic reviews favored not utilizing a tourniquet due to the decrease in complication rate and the improvement in clinical results. While it is standard practice in the US to utilise a tourniquet, the strong consensus of the literature on the subject favors either not using a tourniquet or minimizing the use of a tourniquet for the period of time necessary for a very dry field for cement fixation.

Currently, there is considerable interest in the role that metal allergy may play in the clinical performance of orthopaedic devices. The extant literature suggests that metal allergy is a real clinical phenomenon, albeit the prevalence and clinical impact are not defined. Degradation products in the form of ionic or particulate debris can complex with local proteins and alter their conformation so that they may not be recognised as self-proteins. This can result in an adaptive immune response. The typical paradigm proposed for such an allergy is that of a delayed type hypersensitivity response (Type 4) whereby the antigenic stimulus interacts with antigen presenting cells and T lymphocytes to elicit a cell mediated immune response. There is some evidence that patients with metal-on-metal bearings and/or high serum metal levels elicit more response to metal antigen challenge measured as either patch test sensitivity or lymphocyte proliferation. Thus, while there is an idiosyncratic aspect of the allergic response, there is also a dose response component.

The diagnosis of metal allergy remains a challenge as patch testing has not been shown to correlate well with clinical symptoms. In-vitro assays, such as lymphocyte transformation testing, have promise but await robust clinical validation before they can be considered reliable diagnostic testing modalities. Allergy to implanted metal orthopaedic devices is a rare clinical event, and is a diagnosis of exclusion. Revision surgery should be considered a last resort with the understanding that the outcomes are unpredictable. Given the limitations of current diagnostic modalities, widespread screening of patients for metal allergies prior to TKA is not recommended.

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

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

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

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating and progressive condition that accounts for over 80% of the total osteoarthritis burden. Surgical intervention is the suitable option in end-stage osteoarthritis, however, in cases of less severe disease, it may be warranted to use non-operative methods. Knee braces have recently become a popular option as an addition to conventional treatment, and have displayed good results in improving function, reducing pain, and attenuating disease progression. Furthermore, other non-invasive modalities can be supplemented to bracing as a means to improve recovery and delay the need for surgery. Studies have indicated that the medial compartment of the knee sustains 62% of loading forces during the stance phase of regular gait, meanwhile the lateral compartment receives the remaining 38%. It is postulated that this distribution of knee loading forces is the reason why the medial compartment is more frequently deteriorated as compared to the lateral joint compartment. The use of medial compartment unloader braces can reduce these stresses by the means of distraction and rotation of the knee joint with the goal of increasing the medial joint space and producing pain relief. Knee bracing has the capability to enhance patients’ functional status, and even correct the gait changes associated with knee OA. Therefore, our goal is to assess: 1) the use of knee braces at our institution, and 2) the effectiveness of the various types of knee braces in treating OA associated knee pain.

Wear of the tibial polyethylene liner of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is complex and multifactorial. The issues involved include those of implant design and locking mechanism, surgical-technical variability, and patient weight and activity level. However, tibial polyethylene fabrication, including bar stock, amount of irradiation, quenching of free radicals, and sterilization may also be factors in the long-term survival of TKA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene is now widely used in total hip arthroplasty, but its value and use in TKA is a subject of great controversy. In making a decision to use these products, the surgeon should consider multiple sources of evidence: in-vitro wear testing; clinical cohort studies; randomised controlled trials; registry survival data; and retrieval analyses. The two questions to be asked are: is there a value or benefit in the use of these new polyethylenes, and what are the risks involved with the use of these products?

Laboratory testing, generally to 5 million cycles, has shown a significant decrease in tibial polyethylene wear of several products, with both cruciate-retaining and substituting designs, and under adverse conditions. Retrospective cohort studies and RCTs comparing conventional and highly crosslinked polyethylene have shown little difference between the two products at mean follow-up times of 5 years. One registry study showed no difference in the rate of revision at short-term follow-up, but the Australian Joint Replacement Registry in 2014 did report a decreased rate of revision for loosening and osteolysis in “young patients” with one particular tibial polyethylene.

The risks of the use of highly crosslinked polyethylene include fracture (the tibial liner, PS post, and patella pegs), and particle size-reactivity. However, these risks appear to be quite low. Retrieval data shows lower damage scores with certain polyethylenes, and variable changes in the oxidation score.

At present, the data does not support the widespread or routine use of highly crosslinked or antioxidant polyethylene in TKA. However, consideration should be given for use of certain products in young and active patients. Longer-term follow-up will ultimately determine the role of highly crosslinked polyethylene in TKA.

The entirety of the patient experience after contemporary total knee and total hip replacements in 2016 is markedly different from that encountered by patients just a decade ago. Ten years ago most patients were treated in a traditional sick-patient model of care and because they were assumed to require substantial hospital intervention, many cumbersome and costly interventions (e.g. indwelling urinary catheters, patient-controlled-analgesic pumps, autologous blood transfusion, continuous passive motion machines) were a routine part of the early post-operative experience. Today the paradigm has shifted to a well-patient model with a working assumption that once a patient has been medically optimised for surgery then the intervention itself, hip or knee replacement, will not typically create a sick-patient. Instead it is expected that most patients can be treated safely and more effectively with less intensive hospital intervention. While as orthopaedic surgeons we are enamored with the latest surgical techniques or interesting technologies most busy surgeons recognise that advances in peri-operative pain management, blood management, and early-mobilization therapy protocols account for the greatest share of improvements in patient experience over the past decade.

One can think pragmatically to get ahead and stay ahead of 3 predictable physiologic disturbances that adversely impact rapid recovery after knee and hip replacement: fluid/blood loss; pain; and nausea. The modern orthopaedic surgeon and his/her care team needs a simple strategy to proactively, not reflexively, manage each of those 3 predictable impediments to early recovery. Those surgical teams that routinely get ahead and stay ahead in each of those areas will routinely witness faster recovery, lower costs and greater patient satisfaction and that is clearly a win for patient and surgeon alike.

Effective pain management improves patient satisfaction, decreases hospital stay, and facilitates discharge to home. Today's emphasis is on a multi-modal strategy that minimises the use of opioids. Most protocols use pre-operative medications including an NSAID, acetaminophen, an oral opioid and some include gabapentin. Regional anaesthesia is typically preferred over general. Both peripheral nerve blocks and periarticular local anesthetic cocktail injections have proved as effective adjuncts in decreasing early post-operative pain. Post-operative oral medications delivered on a schedule, not just as needed, often include acetaminophen, an NSAID and some included gabapentin. Oral and parenteral opioids are reserved for breakthrough pain.

Functional restoration of patella kinematics is an essential component of TKA, whether the patella is replaced or not. This goal is accomplished by a multifactorial approach: establish proper component position and alignment, especially rotation, avoid IR of the femoral and ER of the tibial components, maintain correct joint line position, achieve symmetrical soft tissue balance

Most modern TKA designs have an anatomic trochlear groove shape to enable midline tracking. Patella implants are better designed as well with three equilateral lugs for fixation and either dome or anatomic shape. The apex of the patella component should be aligned with the apex of the patella raphe which is more medial than lateral. This method leaves an island of exposed lateral patella facet which is managed with the “lateral slat technique” to be described. It is essentially an intraosseous lateral release. The early mobilization of modern TKA patients demands watertight closure to prevent soft tissue attenuation and late tracking issues.

When confronted with a patient with a laterally dislocated patella, implementation of the “lateral slat technique” should be done at the approach to obtain midline tracking. Such patients require a median parapatellar (MPP) approach and may need distal-lateral vastus medialis advancement (Insall procedure).

Adherence to the principles iterated herein will produce a happy patient with good patello-femoral kinematics and function.

Fifteen-year survivorship studies demonstrate that total knee replacements have excellent survivorship, with reports of 85% to 97%. However, excellent survivorship does not equate to excellent patient reported outcomes. Noble et al reported that 14% of their patients were dissatisfied with their outcome with more than half expressing problems with routine activities of daily living. There is also a difference in the patient's subjective assessment of outcome and the surgeon's objective assessment. Dickstein et al reported that a third of total knee patients were dissatisfied, even though the surgeons felt that their results were excellent. Most of the patients who report lower outcome scores due so because their expectations are not being fulfilled by the total knee replacement surgery.

Perhaps this dissatisfaction is a result of subtle soft tissue imbalance that we have difficulty in assessing intra-operatively and post-operatively. Soft tissue balancing techniques still rely on subjective feel for appropriate ligamentous tension by the surgeon. Surgical experience and case volume play a major role in each surgeon's relative skill in balancing the knee properly.

New technology of “smart trials” with embedded microelectronics and accelerometers, used in the knee with the medial retinaculum closed, can provide dynamic, intra-operative feedback regarding knee quantitative compartment pressures and component tracking. After all bone cuts are made using the surgeon's preferred techniques, trial components with the sensored tibial trial are inserted and the knee is taken through a passive range of motion. After visualizing the resultant compartment pressures and tracking data on a graphical interface, the surgeon can decide whether to perform a soft tissue balance or minor bone recuts. If soft tissue balancing is chosen, pressure data can indicate where to perform the release and allow the surgeon to assess the pressure changes as titrated soft tissue releases are performed.

A multi-center study using smart trials has demonstrated dramatically better outcomes at six months and one year.

Performance and durability of total knee arthroplasty is optimised when bone surfaces are prepared with the knee in neutral varus-valgus alignment in the anteroposterior (AP) plane. For the femur, this means resecting the surface perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the femur, which passes through the center of the femoral head and center of the knee. Because the center of the femoral head is not a reliable landmark during the operation, the distal femoral surface can be resected at 5 degrees valgus to the long axis of the femur using an intramedullary (IM) alignment rod to establish the position of the femur's long axis. The IM rod also provides the landmark for alignment of the femoral component in the flexion-extension position. Tibial alignment is established by cutting the upper surface of the tibia perpendicular to the long axis. An IM rod is not necessary for alignment since the ankle is accessible for reference. An extramedullary (EM) rod easily can span the distance between the centers of the tibial surface at the knee and ankle to establish a reference for upper tibial surface resection via the long axis of the tibia. In cases with femoral deformity or bone disease that prevents use of an IM rod as a landmark for the long axis of the femur, computer-assisted alignment can be helpful to establish the mechanical axis of the femur and to determine the level of resection of the femoral surface to create a plane that is perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the femur and positioned to place the joint surface at the correct level. Whereas this can be done with CT scan or MRI imaging and robotic instrumentation, the cost in time and money is substantial. Rather, plane film radiographs can be used along with intra-operative measurements and hand-held tools that are readily available in the standard total knee instrument set.

Using an AP radiograph taken to include the femoral head and knee: Mark the centers of the femoral head and knee. Draw a line to connect the centerpoints. Mark the high points of the medial and lateral femoral condylar joint surfaces. Draw a line perpendicular to the mechanical axis that crosses the mark on the high point of the most prominent femoral condyle. This line marks the position and alignment of the femoral implant surface. Next, measure the distal thickness of the femoral component and add 10% to account for magnification of the radiograph. Draw a parallel line this distance proximal to the femoral surface line. This is the femoral resection line. Less than the thickness of the implant will be resected from the least prominent condyle. On the low side, measure the thickness of bone to be resected and the distance between the bone surface and distal surface line. Insert a threaded pin into the bone surface with the measured distance protruding from the surface to set this position. Seat the distal femoral cutting guide against the protruding pin and against the surface of the femur on the high side. Resect with the cutting guide fixed perpendicular to the long axis of the femur. This resects the thickness of the implant from the prominent side and resects the prescribed amount from the low side to set the distal cut perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the femur. Draw the AP axis from the center of the intercondylar notch posteriorly to the deepest point of the patellar groove, and use the combined cutting guide to finish the femur. Make the anterior, posterior, and bevel cuts perpendicular to the AP axis. Finally, align the tibial surface, with an IM or EM rod, to resect perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia in the AP plane and sloped 4 degrees posteriorly in the lateral plane. Once the bone surfaces are resected at the proper angle, insert the trials or spacer blocks and finish the arthroplasty with release of tight ligaments.

Controversy remains regarding the optimal treatment for iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Some authors have recommended converting to a prosthesis that provides varus/valgus constraint while others have recommended primary repair. In this study, we report the results of 45 patients who sustained intra-operative MCL injuries during primary TKA that were treated with primary repair.

Of 3922 consecutive primary TKA there were 48 (1.2%) intra-operative MCL lacerations or avulsions. One patient was lost and one died before 24 months follow up. All but one patient underwent primary repair with placement of components without varus/valgus constraint. This left 45 knees with a mean follow up of 89 months (range, 24 to 214 months). The mean HSS knee scores increased from 47 to 85 points (p<0.001). No patients had subjective complaints of instability. No patients had excessive varus/valgus laxity when tested in full extension and 30 degrees of flexion. The range of motion at the time of final follow-up averaged 110 degrees (range, 85 to 130 degrees). Five knees required treatment for stiffness with 4 knees undergoing manipulation under anaesthesia and 1 knee undergoing open lysis of adhesions with polyethylene articular surface exchange. Two knees underwent revision for aseptic loosening of the tibial component. In the three knees that underwent open revision, the MCL was noted to be in continuity and without laxity.

Primary repair with 6 weeks of post-operative hinged bracing after iatrogenic injury to the MCL during primary TKA was successful at preventing instability although stiffness was seen in approximately 10% of patients. The increased morbidity associated with implantation of a semi-constrained or constrained implant may be unwarranted in this situation.

There is increased awareness of the health benefits of regular exercise, and quantifying daily activity has become popular. Consequently, there are an increasing number of devices for measuring physical activity. Healthcare professionals and the general public should know the accuracy and limitations of these devices to better determine which ones suit their needs.

Ten devices were tested: one ankle-based device, StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (SAM); two wrist-based devices, FitBit Force™ and Nike+ Fuelband SE; seven waist-based devices, Omron HJ-321 Pedometer, Sportline 340 Strider Pedometer, FitBit One™, Samsung Galaxy S4 utilizing the two most popular applications (Runtastic and Noom Walk), and the iPhone 5 utilizing the two most popular applications (Runtastic and ARGUS). Thirty healthy volunteers, mean age 25.6 years (range 20–30) and mean body mass index 23.5 (range 17.3–29.0), completed the following protocol: (1) walk briskly around a 400-M track simulating community ambulation (2) jog around a 400-M track (3) walk slowly for 10-M, approximating household or workplace pace (4) ascend 10 steps, and (5) descend 10 steps. Each subject completed 3 trials for each task. Manual count was the gold standard (Champion Sports Tally Counter). Accuracy and mean percent error were calculated to demonstrate overall performance and any tendencies for over or undercounting. An Aggregate Accuracy Score was calculated using the mean accuracy of each activity and multiplying by a corresponding weighted value for a prototypical person: 400-M walk represents community ambulation, weighted 40%; 10-M walk represents household and workplace ambulation, weighted 30%; 400-M jog represents jogging or running, weighted 20%; Stair Ascent and Descent represent community and household stair use, weighted 5% each.

Device rank based on the Aggregate Accuracy Score was #1 FitBit One™ (98.0%), #2 Omron HJ-321 (97.0%), #3 StepWatch™ Activity Monitor (93.3%), #4 Runtastic Google App (92.7%), #5 Runtastic iPhone App (89.5%), #6 Fitbit Force™ (88.2%), #7 Argus iPhone App (87.2%), #8 Sportline 340 Strider (85.7%), #9 Nike Fuelband (76.1%), #10 Noom Walk Google App (75.9%). The FitBit One™ was 99.5%, 97.8%, 96.7%, 94.3%, and 96.9% accurate in the 400-M walk, 10-M walk, 400-M jog, 10 stair ascent, and 10 stair descent, respectively. The Omron HJ-321 was 99.3%, 94.9%, 97.9%, 92.2%, and 91.3% accurate, respectively. The SAM performed well (>95% accurate) in all activities except one, consistently undercounting the 400-M jog by about 25% (95% CI: −27.2% – −23.9%). The FitBit ForceTM and Nike+ Fuelband SE wrist devices were ≥90% accurate in the 400-M walk and 400-M jog, but ≤83% accurate for all other activities. Three of the 4 smartphone applications were >97% accurate in the 400-M walk, 1 of 4 was 97.3% accurate in the 400-M jog, but all devices performed poorly (≤90% accurate) for all other activities.

Smartphones are very popular, but current technology is less accurate for measuring overall daily activity. The relatively inexpensive FitBit One™ and Omron HJ-321 pedometer are highly accurate for quantifying a variety of activities, including running. The StepWatch™ Activity Monitor performs well in lower cadence, but consistently undercounted jogging. Wrist-based activity devices are not as accurate as waist-based. Next generation technologies, including smartphones, should undergo accuracy testing before recommending them for daily use.

Systematic surgical exposure during revision total knee arthroplasty is essential for revision surgery. Surgical exposure protects the extensor mechanism, facilitates safe implant removal and allows for accurate reimplantation of components. The pre-operative plan is critical to achieving appropriate exposure in the revision setting. Evaluating the skin and previous incisions will aid in the exposure technique selected.

The key to revision total knee arthroplasty is systematic releases. Revision total knees can be exposed with a standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy, a proximal medial tibial peel, and a quad snip. This takes tension off the stiff knee, is easy to repair, and does not require limitation of rehabilitation protocols. The patella need not be everted in the revision surgery. The Banana Peel technique is very helpful for the stiff knee. The tibial tubercle osteotomy can also be utilised in patients with extreme stiffness and can aid in removal of well-fixed tibial stems. Keep the osteotomy long (8–10 cm) and leave a lateral soft tissue bridge. Other techniques such as the quadricepsplasty or V-Y turndown are rarely needed.

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 maneuvers 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.

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

The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, with the World Health Organization reporting that American's consume 99% of the world's supply of hydrocodone and 83% of the world's oxycodone. Additionally, pre-operative opioid use has been associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher rates of complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This is especially important in the TKA population given that approximately 15% of patients are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied at least one year after their TKA procedure. Given the concerning rise in opioid use the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has recently released an information statement with practice recommendations for combating this excessive and inappropriate opiate use. However, little is known regarding peri-operative opioid use for TKA patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to: 1) identify rates of opioid use prior to primary TKA, 2) evaluate post-operative trends in opioid use throughout the year following TKA and 3) identify risk factors for prolonged opioid use following TKA.

Overall, 31% of TKA patients are prescribed opioids within 3-months prior to TKA; this percentage has increased over 9% during the years included in this study. Pre-operative opioid use was most predictive of increased refills of opioids following TKA, however, other intrinsic patient characteristics were also predictive of prolonged opioid use. These characteristics remained predictive after controlling for opioid user status. The increasing rates of opioid prescribing prior to TKA are concerning, especially given literature concluding opioids have minimal effect on pain or function in patients with osteoarthritis and pre-operative opioid use is associated with poor outcomes and more complications following TKA. This data provides an important baseline for opioid use trends following TKA that can be used for future comparison and identifies risk factors for prolonged use that will be helpful to prescribers as the AAOS works to decreased opioid use, misuse and abuse within the United States.

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) overall is a very reliable, durable procedure. Biomechanical studies have suggested superior stress distribution in metal-backed tibial trays, however, these results have not been universally observed clinically. Currently there is a paucity of information examining the survival and outcomes of all-polyethylene tibial components.

Methods: We reviewed 31,939 patients undergoing a primary TKA over a 43-year period (1970–2013). There were 28,224 (88%) metal-backed and 3,715 (12%) all-polyethylene tibial components. The metal-backed and all-polyethylene groups had comparable demographics with respect to sex distribution (57% female for both) mean age (67 vs. 71 years), and mean BMI (31.6 vs. 31.1). Mean follow-up was 7 years (maximum 40 years).

Results: The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the outcomes of all-polyethylene compared to metal-backed components in TKA and to determine (1) is there a difference in overall survival? All-polyethylene tibial components had improved survivorship (P<0.0001) and metal-backed tibias were at increased risk of revision (HR 3.41, P<0.0001). (2) Does body mass index (BMI) or age have an effect on survival of all-polyethylene compared to metal-backed tibial components? All-polyethylene tibias had improved survival (P<0.01) in all ages groups except in patients 85 years or greater, where there was no difference (P=0.16). All-polyethylene tibial components had improved survival (P<0.005) for all BMI's except in the morbidly obese (BMI ≥40) where there was no difference (P=0.20). (3) Is there an increased risk of post-operative infection? Metal-backed tibial components were found to have an increased risk of infection (HR 1.60, P=0.003). (4) Is there a difference in the rate of reoperation and post-operative complications? Metal-backed tibial components were found to have an increased risk of reoperation (HR 1.84, P<0.0001).

Conclusions: The use of all-polyethylene tibias should be considered for the majority of patients, regardless of age and BMI.

While the vast majority of total knee replacements performed throughout the world employ a modular metal-backed tibial tray, and not an all-polyethylene tray, this issue remains controversial.

Proposed advantages to a metal-backed tray include: a) decreased bending strains, b) reduces compressive stresses in the cement and cancellous bone beneath the baseplate (especially in asymmetric loading), c) distributes load more evenly across the interface

Proposed advantages of an all-polyethylene tray include: a) cost reduction, b) reduced polyethylene thickness with the same amount of bone resection, c) increased tensile stresses at the interface during eccentric loading

The challenge is at present we don't know the >10-year track record of current generation tibial components. This debate centers on the <60-year-old. This is the most difficult patient in total knee arthroplasty with higher revision rates than an older cohort.

It makes sense to use an all-polyethylene tibia if the revision rates turn out to be similar and you don't intend to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. It makes sense to do a modular tray if the results are similar, but there is an intention to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. If either one of these implants choices has a lower cumulative revision rate, then that is the implant of choice at present.

However, we need to understand that at present we don't know if the results of current generation all-polyethylene tibial components will indeed be equal to metal-backed components. The most recent data from the Australian registry suggests that in fact all-polyethylene tibial components have a higher failure rate than metal-backed components when looking at the entire class of design. This would be expected to be even more significant in the younger patient.

Resurfacing the patella is performed the majority of the time in the US and in many regions it is considered standard practice. In many countries, however, the patella is left unresurfaced an equal amount of the time or even rarely ever resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is not a simple or benign procedure. There are numerous negative sequelae of resurfacing including loosening, fragmentation, avascular necrosis, lateral facet pain, stress fracture, acute fracture, late fracture, and restricted motion. In a study by Berend, Ritter, et al, failures of the patella component were reported 4.2% of the time at an average of only 2.6 years. A study was undertaken at Washington University in recent years to determine whether more clinical problems were observed following total knee replacement with or without patella resurfacing. Records were maintained on all problem total knees cases with well localised anterior knee pain. The referral area for this clinic is St. Louis which is among the largest American cities, with the highest percentage of total knees that are performed without patella resurfacing. During 4 years of referrals of total knee patients with anterior knee pain, 47 cases were identified of which 36 had a resurfaced patella and 11 had a non-resurfaced patella. Eight of 36 resurfaced patellae underwent surgery while only 2 of 11 non-resurfaced patellae underwent subsequent surgery. More than 3 times as many painful total knees that were referred for evaluation had already had their patella resurfaced. In spite of the fact that approximately equal number of total knees were performed in this area without patella resurfacing, far more patients presented to clinic with painful total knee in which the patella had been resurfaced. The numerous pathologies requiring a treatment following patella resurfacing included patella loosening, fragmentation of the patella, avascular necrosis patella, late stress fracture, lateral facet pain, oblique resurfacing, and too thick of a patellar composite. In a large multi-center randomised clinical trial at 5 years from the United Kingdom in over 1700 knees from 34 centers and 116 surgeons, there was no difference in the Oxford Score, SF-12, EQ-5D, or need for further surgery or complications. The authors concluded, “We see no difference in any score, if there is a difference, it is too small to be of any clinical significance”. In a prospective randomised clinical trial performed at Tulane University over 20 years ago, no differences were observed in knee score, a functional patella questionnaire, or the incidence of anterior knee pain between resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae at time intervals of 2–4 years, 5–7 years, or greater than 10 years. Beyond 10 years the knee scores of total knee patients with a resurfaced patella had declined significantly greater than those with a non-resurfaced patella. There are numerous advantages of not resurfacing the patella including less surgical time, less expense, a lower risk of “major” complications (especially late complications), and if symptoms develop in an unresurfaced patella, it is an easier salvage situation with more options available. A small percentage of total knee patients will be symptomatic whether or not their patella is resurfaced. Not resurfacing the patella retains more options and has fewer complications. The major determinant of clinical result and the presence of anterior knee pain after knee replacement is surgical technique and component design not whether or not the patella is resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is occasionally necessary for patients with inflammatory arthritis, a deformed or maltracking patella, or symptoms and pathology that are virtually restricted to the patellofemoral joint. For the vast majority of patients, however, patella resurfacing is not necessary.

When dealing with the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) there are three philosophies. Some advocate resurfacing in all cases, others do not resurface, and a third group selectively resurfaces the patella. The literature does not offer one clear and consistent message on the topic. Treatment of the patella and the ultimate result is multifactorial. Factors include the patient, surgical technique, and implant design. With respect to the patient, inflammatory versus non-inflammatory arthritis, pre-operative presence or absence of anterior knee pain, age, sex, height, weight, and BMI affect results of TKA. Surgical technique steps to enhance the patellofemoral articulation include: 1) Restore the mechanical axis to facilitate patellofemoral tracking. 2) Select the appropriate femoral component size with respect to the AP dimension of the femur. 3) When performing anterior chamfer resection, measure the amount of bone removed in the center of the resection and compare to the prosthesis. Do not overstuff the patellofemoral articulation by taking an inadequate amount of bone. 4) Rotationally align the femur appropriately using a combination of the AP axis, the transepicondylar axis, the posterior condylar axis, and the tibial shaft axis. 5) If faced with whether to medialise or lateralise the femoral component, always lateralise. This will enhance patellofemoral tracking. 6) When resurfacing the patella, only evert the patella after all other bony resections have been performed. Remove peripheral osteophytes and measure the thickness of the patella prior to resection. Make every effort to leave at least 15 mm of bone and never leave less than 13 mm. 7) Resect the patella. The presenter prefers a freehand technique using the insertions of the patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon as a guide, sawing from inferior to superior, then from medial to lateral to ensure a smooth, flat, symmetrical resection. Medialise the patellar component and measure the thickness of reconstruction. 8) When not resurfacing the patella, surgeons generally remove all the peripheral osteophytes, and some perform denervation using electrocautery around the perimeter. 9) Determine appropriate patellofemoral tracking only after the tourniquet is released. 10) Close the knee in flexion so as not to tether the soft tissues about the patella and the extensor. With or without patellar resurfacing, implant design plays in important role in minimizing patellofemoral complications. Newer designs feature a so-called “swept back” femur in which the chamfer resection is deepened, and patellofemoral overstuffing is minimised. Lateralizing the trochlear groove on the anterior flange, orienting it in valgus alignment, and gradually transitioning to midline have improved patellofemoral tracking. Extending the trochlear groove as far as possible into the tibiofemoral articulation has decreased patellofemoral crepitation and patellar clunk in posterior stabilised designs. With respect to the tibial component, providing patellar relief anteriorly in the tibial polyethylene has facilitated range of motion and reduced patellar impingement in deep flexion. On the patella side, the all-polyethylene patella remains the gold standard. While data exist to support all three viewpoints in the treatment of the patella in TKA, it is the presenter's opinion that the overwhelming data support patella resurfacing at the time of primary TKA. It is clear from the literature that the status of the patellofemoral articulation following TKA is multifactorial. Surgical technique and implant design are key to a well-functioning patellofemoral articulation. Pain is the primary reason patients seek to undergo TKA. Since our primary goal is to relieve pain, and there has been a higher incidence of anterior knee pain reported without patellar resurfacing, why not resurface the patella?

Refinement of surgical techniques, anaesthesia protocols, and patient selection have facilitated this transformation to same day discharge for arthroplasty care, most notably Partial Knee Arthroplasty (PKR). The trend for early discharge has already happened for procedures formerly regarded as “inpatient” procedures such as upper extremity surgery, arthroscopy, ACL reconstruction, foot and ankle procedures, and rotator cuff repair. Our program began focused on Partial Knee Arthroplasty (PKA) and has now expanded to primary TKA and THA, and select revision cases. Over the past few years we have performed 1,230 Knee Arthroplasty procedures with no readmissions for pain control. Average age and age range is identical to our inpatient cohort for our partial knee cases. Patient selection is based on medical screening criteria and insurance access. PKA is the ideal procedure to begin your transition to the outpatient space. We currently perform medial PKA, lateral PKA, and patellofemoral arthroplasty as outpatient cases.

The program centers on the patient, their family, home recovery, pre-operative education, efficient surgery, and represents a shift in the paradigm of arthroplasty care. It can be highly beneficial to patients, surgeons, anaesthesia, facility costs, and payors as arthroplasty procedures shift to the outpatient space.

Perhaps the most significant developments in joint replacement surgery in the past decade have been in the area of multimodal pain management. This has reduced length of stay in the inpatient hospital environment opening the opportunity for cost savings and even outpatient joint replacement surgery for appropriately selected patients. The hallmark of this program is meticulous protocol execution. Pre-emptive pain control with oral anti-inflammatory agents, gabapentin, regional anesthetic blocks that preserve quad function for TKA (adductor canal block) and pericapsular long acting local anesthetics with the addition of injectable ketorolac and IV acetaminophen are key adjuncts. Over the past two years utilizing this type of program over 60% of our partial knee replacement patients are now returning home the day of surgery.

Concerns over readmission are appropriate. The rates of complications and readmissions are less than our inpatient cohort in appropriately selected cases with a standardised care map. We believe this brings the best VALUE to the patients, surgeons, and the arthroplasty system.

Peri-articular injections (PAI) have become an important component in many multimodal pain protocols after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Liposomal bupivacaine has emerged as a highly marketed and touted ingredient for PAI. However, the true efficacy of this material, particularly compared with less expensive PAI “cocktails” such as traditional bupivacaine or ropivacaine, has not been proven to date.

Ropivacaine is considered a long-active local analgesic and in combination with epinephrine, ketorolac and clonidine has been shown to be a very effective PAI in a multimodal pain program. Liposomal bupivacaine has been similarly touted as a long-acting PAI. Initial reports provided support for liposomal bupivacaine PAI's providing similar pain relief as epidurals or femoral nerve blocks. The authors of these studies tout comparable pain control with decreased length of stay attributable to avoiding the side effects of epidurals and regional blocks. However, the ultimate clinical issue relates to how liposomal bupivacaine PAI's compares to traditional PAI cocktail ingredients such as bupivacaine and ropivacaine, which also avoid deleterious effects of regional analgesia, and at a much cheaper price point. Fortunately the highest quality research to date, which includes randomised prospective trials and retrospective controlled cohort studies, have reported consistent results. In a retrospective cohort study comparing a traditional ropivacaine and epinephrine versus liposomal bupivacaine PAI demonstrated no difference between the two groups in inpatient pain scores when used in a comprehensive multimodal pain control program. Further, two prospective randomised trials reported no difference in liposomal bupivacaine PAI compared to a traditional PAI of either bupivacaine or ropivacaine, epinephrine, ketorolac and clonidine. Finally, there have been some authors who contend the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine PAI's is entirely dependent on a meticulous injection technique, however, comparative studies against traditional PAI ingredients with this recommended technique do not exist.

In summary, the existing data supports that liposomal bupivacaine is an effective PAI that can be used to provide comparable pain relief to that achieved by regional blocks. However, liposomal bupivacaine has not been shown to provide superior pain relief when compared to traditional ropivacaine or bupivacaine PAI's in multimodal pain protocols after TKA. Further, liposomal bupivacaine is prohibitively priced at approximately six times that of ropivacaine-based PAI cocktails. Therefore, the “game changer” is likely the implementation of peri-articular injections as an essential component of multimodal pain control programs and NOT liposomal bupivacaine.

To progress to a same day surgery program for arthroplasty, it is important that we examine and resolve the issues of why patients stay in the hospital. The number one reason is fear and anxiety of the unknown and of surgical pain. The need for hospital stay is also related to risk arising from comorbidities and medical complications. Patients also need an extended stay to manage the side effects of our treatment, including after effects of narcotics and anaesthesia, blood loss, and surgical trauma.

The process begins pre-operatively with an appropriate orthopaedic assessment of the patient and determination of the need for surgery. The orthopaedic team must motivate the patient, and ensure that the expectations of the patient, family and surgeon are aligned. In conjunction with our affiliated hospitalist group that performs almost all pre-admission testing, we have established guidelines for patient selection for outpatient arthroplasty. The outpatient surgical candidate must have failed conservative measures, must have appropriate insurance coverage, and must be functionally independent. Previous or ongoing comorbidities that cannot be optimised for safe outpatient care may include: congestive heart failure, or valve disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or home use of supplemental oxygen; untreated obstructive sleep apnea with a BMI >40 kg/m2; hemodialysis or severely elevated serum creatinine; anemia with hemoglobin <13.0 g/dl; cerebrovascular accident or history of delirium or dementia; and solid organ transplant. Pre-arthroplasty rehabilitation prepares the patient for peri-operative protocols. Patients meet with a physical therapist and are provided with extensive educational materials before surgery to learn the exercises they will need for functional recovery. Enhancement of our peri-operative pain management protocols has resulted in accelerated rehabilitation. The operative intervention must be smooth and efficient, but not hurried. Less invasive approaches and techniques have been shown to decrease pain, reduce length of stay, and improve outcomes, especially in the short term.

Between June 2013 and December 2015, 1957 primary knee arthroplasty procedures (1010 total, 947 partial) were performed by the author and his 3 associates at an outpatient surgery center. Seven percent of patients required an overnight stay, with a majority for reasons of convenience related to travel distance or later operative time. Importantly, no one has required overnight stay for pain management. Outpatient arthroplasty is safe, it's better for us and our patients, and it is here now. In an outpatient environment the surgeon actually spends more time with the patients and family in a friendly environment. Patients feel safe and well cared for, and are highly satisfied with their arthroplasty experience.

Infection following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is fortunately a relatively uncommon complication with an incidence of approximately 1%. However, because the morbidity and cost of treatment of deep prosthetic TKA infections is so high, effective prevention strategies are key quality improvement initiatives. The cause of post-operative infections are multifactorial and complex but can generally be categorised into 1) host, 2) surgical, and 3) environmental factors. The purpose of this abstract is to provide an outline of these factors and their influences on the infection risk following TKA.

Patient factors and optimization of modifiable risk factors have been shown to decrease the risk for infection. While the individual contributions of factors such as body mass index (BMI), diabetes, nutritional status, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and renal disease are unknown, together, they have been shown to influence infection risk. Additionally, Tayton et al. analyzed 64,566 primary TKAs in the New Zealand Joint Registry and found that male gender and prior knee surgery were also independent risk factors of development of PJI 12 months following TKA. Finally, Crowe and colleagues also identified tobacco use and Staphylococcus aureus colonization as modifiable risk factors for minimizing PJI following primary TKA.

Timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior and after surgery has been shown to be the most effective strategy to reduce infection risk. The optimal prophylaxis regimen for all patients is unknown and in certain situations, administration of Vancomycin in additional to a conventional cephalosporin may be beneficial. However, universal administration of Vancomycin has not been shown to decrease the incidence of surgical site infections and could actually increase the risk for renal failure. Conversely, addition of antibiotics to cement during primary TKA has not been shown to reduce long term infection risk. The use of dilute betadine lavage has been shown by some authors to be beneficial. Finally, good surgical technique, proper soft tissue handling, and meticulous wound closure are all critical factors influencing the risk for infectious complications following TKA.

Environmental factors have also been shown to affect infection rates following TKA. While the use of laminar flow and body exhaust suits have not been shown to significantly influence the risk for infection, minimizing operating room traffic has been shown effective in reducing the risk for contamination. Some authors have shown ultraviolet light systems to decrease airborne contaminants.

In summary, factors influencing infection risk following TKA are complex and multifactorial. Patient selection, optimization of modifiable risk factors, appropriate use of antibiotics, and minimization of OR traffic are among the most common strategies to minimizing infection.

The infected joint arthroplasty continues to be a very challenging problem. Its management remains expensive, and places an increasing burden on health care systems. It also leads to a long and difficult course for the patient, and frequently a suboptimal functional outcome. The choice of a particular treatment program will be influenced by a number of factors. These include the acuteness or chronicity of the infection; the infecting organism(s), its antibiotic sensitivity profile and its ability to manufacture glycocalyx; the health of the patient; the fixation of the prosthesis; the available bone stock; and the particular philosophy and training of the surgeon.

For most patients, antibiotics alone are not an acceptable method of treatment, and surgery is necessary. The standard of care for established infection is two-stage revision with antibiotic loaded cement during the interval period and parental antibiotic therapy for six weeks. Single stage revision may have economic and functional advantages however. We have devised a protocol that dictates the type of revision to be undertaken based on host, organism and local factors.

Our protocol has included single stage revision using antibiotic loaded cement in both THA and TKA. This was only undertaken when sensitive organisms were identified pre-operatively by aspiration and appropriate antibiotics were available to use in cement. Patients with immunocompromise, multiple infecting organisms or recurrent infection were excluded. Patients with extensive bone loss that required allograft reconstruction or where a cementless femoral component was necessary were also excluded.

Our algorithm was validated first in the hip and extended to infected TKA in 2004. This protocol has now been applied in over 100 TKA revisions for infection between 2004 and 2009. Our single stage revision rate is now over 25%. We continue to see a lower reinfection rate in these carefully selected patients, with high rates of infection control and satisfaction and better functional and quality of life scores than our two-stage revision cases.

Whilst our indications are arbitrary and not based on specific biomarkers, we present excellent results for selective single stage exchange. A minimum three-year follow-up suggests that these patients have shorter hospital stays, higher satisfaction rates and better knee scores. An ongoing evaluation is in place. One-stage revision arthroplasty for infection offers potential clinical and economic advantages in selected patients.

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

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

While the articulated spacers were our treatment of choice in 2-stage exchange, around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee). At our institution, we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all-polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics.

Around the same time as we instituted the change in articulated spacers, results out of Europe were showing promising results with one-stage exchange. In September 2015, our technique was modified to now include an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. To date we have no results but it is our hope that a high percent of these will achieve stable fixation and will then have a one-stage exchange.

Post-surgical wound infections following total hip or knee arthroplasties can be a potentially catastrophic complication for the patient. Currently, several preventative measures exist to help combat this complication. One such method is skin disinfection with preadmission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation. Although efficacious in reducing surgical site infections during total joint arthroplasty, orthopaedists should be aware of discrepancies between hip and knee arthroplasty. For example, Kapadia et al. performed a prospective study which evaluated the use of preadmission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation on the reduction of surgical site infections following total hip arthroplasty; they found that there was a 3-fold higher relative risk of developing infection in patients who did not receive the chlorhexidine preparation as compared to those who did. In a similar study performed for total knee arthroplasty, the same authors founds a 6-fold higher relative risk of developing infection, which equated to double the risk as compared to total hip arthroplasty. In a study by Lewis et al. regarding timing to diagnosis of surgical site infections in post-hip and knee arthroplasties, the authors found a longer median time to diagnosis post-knee arthroplasty as compared to hip arthroplasty (25 vs. 42 days, p= <0.001). These finding suggest that orthopaedists should recognise that “A knee is not a hip” with regards to surgical site infections and should be aware of the discrepancies that exist between the two.

Background: The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has rapidly become popular, but there is little consensus regarding the risks and benefits of this approach in comparison with a modern posterior approach (PA).

Methods: 2,147 patients who underwent DAA THA were propensity score matched with patients undergoing PA THA on the basis of age, gender, body-mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anaesthesia classification using data from a state joint replacement registry. Mean age of the matched cohort was 64.8 years, mean BMI was 29.1 kg/m2 and 53% were female. Multilevel logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations (GEEs) to control for grouping at the hospital level were utilised to identify differences in various outcomes.

Results: There was no difference in the dislocation rate between patients undergoing DAA (0.84%) and PA (0.79%) THA. Trends indicating a slightly longer length of stay with the PA and a slightly greater risk of fracture, increased blood loss and hematoma with the DAA are consistent with previous studies.

Conclusion: On the basis of short-term outcome and complication data, neither approach has a compelling advantage over each other, including no difference in the dislocation risk.

Persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) remains a problem after knee replacement with some studies reporting up to 20% incidence. Pain is usually felt by those who do not operate to be a monolithic entity. All orthopaedic surgeons know that this is not the case. At its most basic level, pain can be divided into two categories, mechanical and non-mechanical.

Mechanical pain is like the pain of a fresh fracture. If the patient does not move, the pain is less. This type of pain is relieved by opiates. Mechanical pain is seen following knee replacement, but is becoming less frequent. It is caused by a combination of malrotations and maltranslations, often minor, which on their own would not produce problems. The combination of them, however, may produce a knee in which there is overload of the extensor mechanism or of the medial stabilizing structures. If these minor mechanical problems can be identified, then corrective surgery will help.

Non-mechanical pain is present on a constant basis. It is not significantly worsened by activities. Opiates may make the patient feel better, but they do not change the essential nature of the pain. Non-mechanical pain falls into three broad groups, infection, neuropathic and perceived pain. Infection pain is usually relieved by opiates. Since some of this pain is probably due to pressure, its inclusion in the non-mechanical pain group is questionable, but it is better left there so that the surgeon always considers it. Low grade chronic infection can be extremely difficult to diagnose. Loosening of noncemented knee components is so rare that when it is noted radiologically, infection should be very high on the list of suspicions. The name neuropathic pain suggests that we know much more about it than we do in reality. Causalgia or CRPS-type two is rare following knee replacement. CRPS-type one or reflex sympathetic dystrophy probably does exist, but it is probably over-diagnosed. The optimum treatment I have found is lumbar sympathetic blocks. Lyrica, Gabapentin and Cymbalta may also help. Perceived pain is the largest group. It does not matter what you tell the patient, some believe a new knee should be like a new car, i.e. you step into it and drive away. The fact that they have to work to make it work is horrifying. Perceived pain is widespread. The classic treatise, Dr. Ian McNabb's book “Backache”, should be studied by all who wish to understand pain complaints.

Any experienced knee surgeon will have his list of red flags or caveats. I will list only a few. If the patient comes in with a form asking for a disability pension on the first visit. If the patient's mother answers the questions. If the patient comes in taking massive doses of opiates. If the patient is referred to you by a surgeon who does more knee replacements than you do.

There are other issues such as good old fibromyalgia, which appears to have gone the way of the dodo. It has been replaced by something equally silly called central sensitization. The theory of central sensitization is that if one has pain somewhere or other for three months or six months or whatever, there are going to be changes in the brain and spinal cord. It then does not matter what happens to the original pain, i.e. whether or not it goes away, the pain will persist because of the changes in the brain, hence, the title of the pain in the brain syndrome. If this theory was correct, we might as well all go home because we have all been wasting our time for the last 30 years because none of our patients would get any better. After all, all of our patients have had pain for a lot longer than three months, many of them have been involved in trauma and sometimes, compensation is at issue. The pain in the brain theory, therefore, sounds about as realistic as the flat earth society or the treatment of Galileo.

Limited motion is associated with functional impairment and lack of satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The development of limited motion after TKA is often multifactorial. Patient related factors that can contribute to limited motion include poor pre-operative motion, patella infera, hip flexion contracture, leg length inequality, habitual narcotic use, morbid obesity, and possible genetic factors which lead to a biologic predisposition to form scar tissue. Surgical techniques to achieve full motion include appropriate sizing and positioning of the implants, proper gap balancing and soft tissue release, removal of posterior condylar osteophytes, and adequate tibial slope. Patient education, pain management, and participation in post-operative rehabilitation are also important. If adequate motion is not achieved, then manipulation can be helpful particularly up to three months after surgery. Once scar tissue is more mature, 6 months to a year after surgery, arthroscopy to resect arthrofibrotic scar is an appropriate option. For stiffness beyond one year after surgery revision TKA can be expected to result in modest improvement in motion, but pain relief may be quite variable.

Instability currently represents one of the main causes of residual pain and symptoms following TKA and thus is a major cause of revision total knee replacement, second only to component loosening in some series. Instability related to ligamentous laxity can be categorised by the pattern of relative laxity of the soft tissue structures and this in turn helps in determination of the bony alignment issue, component sizing or positioning problem or ligamentous abnormality that may be contributory and require correction. Instability patterns associated with TKA can be symmetrical and global type instability where there is laxity in all planes, and can also more commonly be asymmetrical or isolated laxity problems where there is good stability in some planes or positions of the knee but excessive laxity in at least one direction. Isolated laxity problems can be subcategorised into one of 3 patterns: Extension instability, Flexion instability, and Recurvatum. Global laxity can occur due to inadequate tibial component thickness, or globally incompetent soft tissues, and can present initially after TKA or alternatively can present late from slow stretch of soft tissues over time as can be seen with some pathologic states.

Asymmetrical or Isolated laxity occurs in the sagittal plane when medial vs. lateral “gaps” are unequal and may be due to contracture of tight structures either medially or laterally or can be due to insufficiency or injury of the ligamentous structures on one side vs. the normal structures on other side. Occasionally there is a combination of both contracture on one side and attenuation/stretch on the other side as seen in some patients with severe long standing genu varum or genu valgum. Asymmetrical laxity in the frontal plane generally results in unequal extension vs. flexion “gaps”. This can cause either anteroposterior laxity in flexion but full extension with good stability or alternatively, there may be AP stability in flexion but a lack of full extension in the presence of the exact same pattern of imbalance when a “too thick” polyethylene insert is used to correct what would otherwise be flexion instability. In both cases, the extension gap is tighter than the flexion gap. Isolated recurvatum occurs when the posterior capsular structures are relatively lax or deficient so that a knee that is otherwise stable in the medial-lateral plane in extension, and is stable in the AP plane when in flexion, hyperextends in the fully extended position. In any TKA procedure (but especially revision for instability) it is critical to understand the effect of selected bone resection (or build ups) on soft tissue balancing in order to avoid or treat ligamentous laxity: distal femur – effects extension gap only; posterior femur – effects flexion gap only; proximal tibia – both flexion and extension spaces.

During revision for instability, careful evaluation of the cause of the laxity and failure is critically important, especially if there is associated axial deformity or malalignment which generally must be corrected for any reconstruction or revision components to work. Most knees revised for instability issues will require a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar design. Constrained condylar implants are used to compensate for residual medial-lateral imbalance still present after standard soft tissue releases medially (subperiosteal tibia) or laterally (vis selective pie-crust method). However, if the patient displays residual major medial-lateral or global instability that cannot be corrected, or when there is an excessive flexion gap that cannot be stabilised with maximal allowable component sizing, a rotating hinge constrained total knee replacement design may be required. Recent data has shown that rotating hinges can work reliably in restoring stability to the knee in such cases with satisfactory durability and clinical results over time.

Extensor mechanism complications after or during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are problematic. The prevalence ranges from 1%-12% in TKA patients. Treatment results for these problems are inferior to the results of similar problems in non-TKA patients. Furthermore, the treatment algorithm is fundamentally different from that of non-TKA patients. The surgeon's first question does not focus on primary fixation; rather the surgeon must ask if the patient needs surgery and if so am I prepared to augment the repair? Quadriceps tendon rupture, peri-prosthetic patellar fracture, and patellar tendon rupture have similar treatment algorithms. Patients who are able to perform a straight leg raise and have less than a 20-degree extensor lag are generally treated non-operatively with extension bracing. The remaining patients will need surgical reconstruction of the extensor mechanism. Loose patellar components are removed. Primary repair alone is associated with poor results. Whole extensor mechanism allograft, Achilles tendon allograft, and synthetic mesh reconstruction are the current techniques for augmentation. In the acute setting if these are not available, hamstring tendon harvest and augmentation is an option. Achilles tendons and synthetic mesh are easier to obtain than an entire extensor mechanism but are limited to patients that have an intact patella and the patella that can be mobilised to within 2–3 cm of the joint line. No matter which technique is used the principles are: rigid distal/tubercle fixation, coverage of allograft/mesh with host tissue to decrease infection, tensioning the augment material in extension, no flexion testing of reconstruction and post-operative extension bracing.

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

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

In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 implants (18%) were modular fixed-bearing, 4 (8%) were metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 (16%) were resurfacing onlay, 10 (20%) were all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 (38%) were mobile bearing designs; 5 knees (10%) failed due to infection, 5 (10%) due to wear and/or instability, 10 (20%) for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 (16%) for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 (44%) due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants (P=0.23) or failure modes (P=0.27). Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Failure mode was predictive of complexity. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome.

In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (81 males, 87 females; average age of 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (range 2 months to 262 months). The four most common reasons for failure of the UKA were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (range 6 months to 123 months). The rate of revision was 1.23 revisions per 100 observed component years. The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months or 1.2 revisions per 100 observed component years. Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision of a failed UKA is equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA.

Metal Ion Levels Not Useful in Failed M-O-M Hips: Systematic Review; Revision of Failed M-O-M THA at a Tertiary Center; Trunnionosis in Metal-on-Poly THA?; Do Ceramic Heads Eliminate Trunnionosis?; Iliopsoas Impingement After 10 THA; Pain in Young, Active Patients Following THA; Pre-operative Injections Increase Peri-prosthetic THA Infection; Debridement and Implant Retention in THA Infection; THA after Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion; Lumbar Back Surgery Prior to THA Associated with Worse Outcomes; Raising the Joint Line Causes Mid-Flexion Instability in TKA; No Improvement in Outcomes with Kinematic Alignment in TKA; Botox For TKA Flexion Contracture; Intra-operative Synovitis Predicts Worse Outcomes After TKA for OA; When is it Safe for Patients to Drive After Right TKA?; Alpha-Defensin for Peri-prosthetic Joint Infection; Medial Tibia Overhang and Pain Score After TKA

Bicruciate ligament retaining total knee arthroplasty preserves all of the ligaments of the knee while still addressing the ligament balance and the flexion-extension gaps. The concept of cruciate ligament preservation is not new and both Townley and Cartier designed prostheses in the late 1980s that did preserve all of the ligaments. Their results were quite acceptable for that time in knee replacement surgery but the posterior stabilised and cruciate retaining designs controlled most of the market. The surgical technique for cruciate ligament preservation was more difficult, and without clear clinical benefit, most surgeons gravitated towards the cruciate retaining and posterior stabilised designs. In the late 1990s, evaluation of the total knee arthroplasty began to assess knee kinematics in addition to pain and functional outcomes. At the same time, studies on the unicondylar knee arthroplasty demonstrated impressive scores in motion and patient satisfaction with preservation of all of the ligamentous structures of the knee. Over the past two years, new designs that preserve all of the ligaments of the knee have returned to the market. The instruments have been improved and the prostheses have been changed to respect the kinematics of the knee. Fifteen to twenty percent of all total knee replacement patients are not completely satisfied with the surgery and the authors believe that complete ligament preservation may address this complaint.

Background: Structural hip deformities including developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are thought to predispose patients to degenerative joint changes. However, the natural history of these malformations is not clearly delineated.

Methods: Seven-hundred twenty-two patients ≤55 years that received unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) from 1980–1989 were identified. Pre-operative radiographs were reviewed on the contralateral hip and only hips with Tönnis Grade 0 degenerative change that had minimum 10-year radiographic follow-up were included. Radiographic metrics in conjunction with the review of two experienced arthroplasty surgeons determined structural hip diagnosis as DDH, FAI, or normal morphology. Every available follow-up AP radiograph was reviewed to determine progression from Tönnis Grade 0–3 until the time of last follow-up or operative intervention with THA. Survivorship was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology, hazard ratios, and multi-state modeling.

Results: One-hundred sixty-two patients met all eligibility criteria with the following structural diagnoses: 48 DDH, 74 FAI, and 40 normal. Mean age at the time of study inclusion was 47 years (range 18–55), with 56% females. Mean follow-up was 20 years (range 10 – 35 years). Thirty-five patients eventually required THA: 16 (33.3%) DDH, 13 (17.6%) FAI, 6 (15.0%) normal. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that patients with DDH progressed most rapidly, followed by FAI, with normal hips progressing the slowest. The mean number of years spent in each Tönnis stage by structural morphology was as follows: Tönnis 0: DDH = 17.0 years, FAI = 14.8 years, normal = 22.9 years; Tönnis 1: DDH = 12.2 years, FAI = 13.3 years, normal = 17.5 years; Tönnis 2: DDH = 6.0 years, FAI = 9.7 years, normal = 8.6 years; Tönnis 3: DDH = 1.6 years, FAI = 2.6 years, normal = 0.2 years.

Analysis of degenerative risk for categorical variables showed that patients with femoral head lateralization >10 mm, femoral head extrusion indices >0.25, acetabular depth-to-width index <0.38, lateral center-edge angle <25 degrees, and Tönnis angle >10 degrees all had a greater risk of progression from Tönnis 0 to Tönnis 3 or THA. Among patients with FAI morphology, femoral head extrusion indices >0.25, lateral center-edge angle <25 degrees, and Tönnis angle >10 degrees all increased the risk of early radiographic progression. Analysis of degenerative risk for continuous variables using smoothing splines showed that risk was increased for the following: femoral head lateralization >8 mm, femoral head extrusion index >0.20, acetabular depth-to-width index <0.30, lateral center-edge angle <25 degrees, and Tönnis angle >8 degrees.

Conclusions: This study defines the long-term natural history of DDH and FAI in comparison to structurally normal young hips with a presumably similar initial prognostic risk (Tönnis Grade 0 degenerative change and contralateral primary THA). In general, the fastest rates of degenerative change were observed in patients with DDH. Furthermore, risk of progression based on morphology and current Tönnis stage were defined, creating a new prognostic guide for surgeons. Lastly, radiographic parameters were identified that predicted more rapid degenerative change, both in continuous and categorical fashions, subclassified by hip morphology.

Hip arthroplasty surgeons have various bearing choices to make on behalf of their patients. We make those choices based on our knowledge of pre-clinical wear testing data and the outcome of clinical and radiological follow-up studies. The initial use of conventional polyethylene revealed limitations in its use in younger patients. Modern highly crosslinked polyethylene is a vastly improved bearing surface that means less wear and its consequences. Despite this, registry data still suggests that loosening, lysis and dislocation are problematic causes of implant failure. The functional success of hip replacement surgery, the ageing population and younger patients requesting arthroplasty means we should predict ongoing issues consequent to wear related events even with the newer polyethylenes.

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings surfaces have a long history of successful clinical use. The benefits of ceramic bearings are its superior wear characteristics, the minimal biological response to the ceramic wear products and the ability of ceramics to be offered in larger head sizes. Its limitations have been reports of fracture and squeaking.

Fourth generation ceramic articulations have reduced the fracture incidence. Squeaking has been reported to occur in 3% to 20% in different series but revision for squeaking is extremely, low suggesting it is not a significant clinical problem. Edge loading occurs in most hip articulations and is thought to be the primary mechanism in the squeaking event. Modern methodologies of “functional” implant orientation may reduce the incidence of squeaking.

While wear and its consequences remain significant issues in hip arthroplasty, the future will require a bearing with reduced wear and biologically inert wear products. This bearing exists already. “The future is now”.

Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) was introduced to decrease peri-prosthetic osteolysis related to polyethylene wear, a major reason for revision of total hip arthroplasty. There are few reports of wear and osteolysis at 10 years post-operatively. We asked the following questions: (1) What are the linear and volumetric wear rates of one remelted XLPE at 10–14 years using the Martell method? (2) What is the relationship between volumetric wear, femoral head size, and osteolysis? (3) What is the incidence of osteolysis using conventional radiographs with Judet views and the Martell method?

Methods We evaluated a previously reported cohort of 84 hips (72 patients) with one design of an uncemented acetabular component and one electron-beam irradiated, remelted XLPE at a mean follow-up of 11 years (range 10 to 14 years). Measurements of linear and volumetric wear were performed in one experienced laboratory by the Martell method and standard radiographs, with additional Judet views, were used to detect peri-prosthetic osteolysis. Statistical analysis of wear and osteolysis compared to head size was performed.

Results The mean linear wear rate by the first-to-last method was 0.024 mm/year (median, 0.010 mm/year) and the mean volumetric wear rate by this method was 12.2 mm³/year (median, 3.6 mm³/year). We found no association between femoral head size and linear wear rate. However, there was a significant relationship between femoral head size and volumetric wear rates, with 36/40 mm femoral heads having significantly higher volumetric wear (p=0.02). Small osteolytic lesions were noted in 12 hips (14%), but there was no association with head size, acetabular component position, or linear or volumetric wear rates.

Conclusion This uncemented acetabular component and this particular remelted XLPE had low rates of linear and volumetric wear. Small osteolytic lesions were noted at 10 to 14 years, but were not related to femoral head size, linear or volumetric wear rates.

Introduction: Over the last 37 years I have performed more than 8000 primary and revision THRs. These include cemented, hybrid, and noncemented types of fixation. There are many preventable complications which include: infection, delayed wound healing, perforation or varus position of the implant, and suboptimal cement technique. Quality of function depends on restoring center of rotation, restoring offset, equal limb length, balancing soft tissue, and adequate pain control. Long-term success depends on durable fixation and reduced wear. Cement fixation into cortico-cancellous bone provides durable fixation.

Discussion: We have a cohort at my practice of 370 total hip replacements. Fifty-three percent were cemented, 25% were hybrid, and 22% were noncemented. In another cohort of 253 cemented THR followed for a 10-year period, only two failures were found. One revision was for dislocation and the other was for loosening. I have found the Interlock system to have a very successful survivorship rate. I believe the reason for superior results is better polyethylene, better patient selection, and better surgical technique. I indicate cemented fixation for patients 60 years and older. I avoid if there is excessive bleeding and in a heavy, active patient.

Cementless femoral components have an excellent track record that includes efficient implantation and long-term survival, thus are the predominant stem utilised in North America. Femoral component stability and resistance to subsidence are critical for osseointegration and clinical success. Implant design, surgical technique, anatomic fit, and patient characteristics, such as bone quality, can all effect initial implant stability and resistance to subsidence. Variability in stem shape and in the anatomy of the proximal femoral metaphysis has been implicated in the failure of some stem designs. Biologic fixation obtained with osseointegration of cementless implants may improve implant longevity in young, active, and obese patients. Lack of intimate fit can lead to clinical complications such as subsidence, aseptic loosening, and peri-prosthetic fracture. Currently, there are several stem designs, all of which aim to achieve maximal femoral stability and minimal subsidence and include: Fit and Fill / Double Taper Proximally Porous Coated Stems; Parallel Sided Taper Wedge or “Blade” Stems; Wagner Style Conical Shape Splined Titanium Stems; Tapered Rectangular Cross-Section Zweymuller Stem; Fully-Porous Coated Stems; Modular Proximal Sleeve Fluted Stem; Anatomic Proximally Porous Coated Stems.

The majority of patients with relatively straightforward anatomy can be treated with any of the aforementioned femoral implant types. However, more complicated femoral anatomy frequently requires a particular implant type to maximise stability and promote osseointegration. Stems with femoral deformity in the meta-diaphyseal region may require a shorter stem in order to avoid an osteotomy. Distorted femoral anatomy typically seen in childhood diseases, such as dysplasia, may require a modular proximal sleeve tapered fluted stem or Wagner style cone stem to impart optimal stem anteversion separate from the native femoral neck version. The most severe forms of dysplasia may require a shortening osteotomy and subsequent distal fixation and neck version flexibility, which can be addressed with a modular proximal sleeve fluted or fully porous coated stem. A stovepipe or osteoporotic femur may require a stem that engages more distally such as a conical splined tapered stem, a fully porous coated stem or even a cemented stem to achieve adequate stability. Finally, obese patients are a particular challenge and emerging data suggests that a morphologically based parallel-sided taper wedge stems may confer greater stability and resistance to subsidence in these patients. Ultimately, an appropriate selection algorithm will facilitate an appropriate match of the patient morphology with femoral implant geometry that facilitates stable fixation and osseointegration.

Use of a short femoral stem for total hip replacement is not a new idea. Morrey first reported on the results of the Mayo Conservative Stem (Zimmer) in 1989. A short femoral stem can also be soft tissue conserving by allowing for a curved insertion track avoiding the abductor attachments. These concepts have made use of a short femoral stem attractive for use in less invasive total hip surgical approaches. The goal of a short femoral stem is to be bone conserving and provide preferential stress transfer to the proximal femur. This may make the short stem desirable for most total hips regardless of surgical approach.

The proximal femur has considerable variability in shape, canal size, and offset. This makes a single geometry short stem potentially unstable in some anatomic variants without having a longer stem to resist varus bending moments or obtain diaphyseal stability. The Fitmore Stem (Zimmer) has addressed these anatomic variants by having three different shaped stems with different offsets.

The presenter has implanted over 1,000 short stems, using them for both standard and less invasive surgical approaches, and in all bone types. There is a learning curve when using these short stems. Initially some stems were undersized and inserted in some varus. Thirty-four percent of the first 100 short stems inserted had measurable subsidence. However, all stabilised with no further subsidence. Rarely, subsidence now occurs with attention to pre-operative planning for size and improved surgical technique. The surgical technique for insertion of this short stem is different from a conventional length total hip stem. The canal is broached along a curved track with a posterior and lateral moment applied to the broach. Use of the largest size broach that doesn't sink with moderate impaction forces is necessary to maximally contact the medial and lateral proximal cortices to lessen stem subsidence.

Four of over 1,000 stems have been revised for post-operative peri-prosthetic fracture after falls. Two stems were revised for late infection but were not clinically loose. No stems have been revised for aseptic loosening.

There are numerous benefits of femoral head/neck modularity in both primary and revision surgery. Taper corrosion necessitating revision surgery was recognised decades ago, and there are concerns that the incidence is increasing. Variables in design, manufacturing, biomechanics, and modular head assembly have all been implicated. While the incidence of clinically significant taper corrosion is unknown, the adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) does not appear to occur absent a cobalt chromium interface.

The utilization of ceramic heads has increased in recent years. Domestically, more than 50% of femoral heads are now ceramic. This is due, at least in part, to a reduction in patient age at the time of surgery. A stronger influence, however, may be the concern for an adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) due to taper corrosion with a cobalt chromium femoral head. Ceramic heads have a small risk of in-vivo fracture and cost more. Compared to cobalt chromium alloy, ceramic femoral heads wear less against UHMWPE, although the reduction may not be clinically significant when paired with a crosslinked polyethylene. In the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry, of the five bearing combinations with 14-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) data, the lowest is metal femoral heads with crosslinked polyethylene (5.4%).

In-vivo taper assembly technique is variable and can play a role in clinical success or failure, regardless of the head material: taper corrosion with cobalt chromium heads, or fracture of ceramic heads. Standardization of head-neck taper assembly is desirable.

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: Perioperative antibiotics/blood management/preferred anesthetics; Surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: indications or preferences for direct anterior, anterolateral, posterior; Acetabular fixation; Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation; Femoral fixation: Indications for cemented and uncemented implants. Case examples will be used. Is there still a role for hip resurfacing?; Femoral head size: Preferred head sizes and materials in different situations. Is there a role for dual mobility implants in primary THA?; Bearing surface: Present role of different bearings. Case examples will be used.; Tips for optimizing intra-operative hip stability; Tips for optimizing leg length; Post-operative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Heterotopic bone prophylaxis; Post-operative pain management; Post-operative rehabilitation protocol: weight bearing, role of physical therapy; Post-operative activity restrictions; Post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures.

The direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is growing in popularity. This growth is fueled by interest from surgeons and patients alike, both of whom are in search of improved outcomes in THA.

While the benefits of the approach are likely less pronounced than some marketing claims made, delivering a surgical recovery that has less pain and faster function is of significant value to today's patient. Published data has demonstrated subtle improvement in pain and function when compared with both the lateral and posterior approaches. Usually these clinical results are equivalent by 2 or 3 months post-operative. This can lead to accelerated recovery, a shorter length of stay, and a more cost-effective result. Some surgeons have utilised this approach as they implement outpatient THA as well.

Another added benefit is that a supine patient positioning allows for easy implementation of intra-operative fluoroscopy, which has been shown to reduce outliers in component positioning. Improved component positioning has the potential to reduce dislocation rates, lower bearing wear, and improve longevity. While image guided implant positioning can be used with any approach or patient position, it is efficient, affordable, and available to implement with the anterior approach. Using intra-operative imaging requires learning how to use and interpret the image, because incorrect utilization of fluoroscopy can be as harmful as it can be helpful.

Surgeons who are contemplating adapting the approach in practice must be aware of the potential pitfalls and learning curve, as studies have demonstrated increased operative time, blood loss, and peri-operative complications in the early cases. However, with appropriate training, patient selection, and implementation, the approach can be safely used in all THA patients.

The approach to total hip arthroplasty (THA) should allow adequate visualization and access so as to implant in optimal position whilst minimizing muscle injury, maintaining or restoring normal soft tissue anatomy and biomechanics and encouraging a rapid recovery with minimal complications. The direct anterior approach (DAA) for THA was first performed in Paris, by Robert Judet in 1947. This procedure has since been performed consistently by a small group of surgeons and has recently gained great popularity. Access to the hip can be safely performed with one or two assistants. The advantages of the anterior approach for hip arthroplasty are several. First, the hip is an anterior joint, closer to the skin anterior than posterior. Second, the approach follows the anatomic interval between the zones of innervation of the superior and inferior gluteal nerves lateral and the femoral nerve medial. Third, the approach exposes the hip without detachment of muscle from the bone. Care must be taken to avoid cutting the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve which runs over the fascia of the sartorius. The mini-incision variation of this exposure was developed by Joel Matta in 1996. He rethought his approach to hip arthroplasty and by abandoning the posterior approach and adopting the anterior approach his goals were: lower risk of dislocation, enhanced recovery, and increased accuracy of hip prosthesis placement and leg length equality. This approach preserves posterior structures that are important for preventing dislocation while preserving important muscle attachments to the greater trochanter. The lack of disturbance of the gluteus minimus and gluteus medius insertions facilitates gait recovery and rehabilitation while the posterior rotators and capsule provides active and passive stability and accounts for immediate stability of the hip and a low risk of dislocation. Using the anterior approach, patients are allowed to mobilise their hip freely. The gluteus maximus and tensor fascia latae muscles insert on the iliotibial band which joins them and form a ´hip deltoid´. Lack of disturbance of these abductors and pelvic stabilisers is another benefit of the anterior approach and accelerates gait recovery. The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve is at risk when the fascia is incised between the tensor fascia latae and the sartorius muscle. Damaging it may lead to a diminished sensation on the lateral aspect of the thigh and formation of a neuroma.

A disadvantage of the approach is the fact that a special operating table with traction is required. Potential complications include intra-operative femoral and ankle fractures. These can be avoided through careful manipulation of the limb. If a femoral fracture occurs, the incision can be extended distally along the anterolateral aspect of the thigh, and splitting the interval between the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis. In obese or muscular patients, where visibility is in doubt, an increase of the incision length will give the surgeon the required view.

The choice of approach used to perform a primary THA remains controversial. The primary goal of a hip replacement is pain relief, functional recovery and implant longevity performed with a safe and reproducible approach without complications. The anterior approach is promising in terms of hospital stay and functional recovery. Although recent studies suggest that component placement in minimally invasive surgery is safe and reliable, no long-term results have been published. Further follow-up and development is necessary to compare the results with the posterior approach. The proposed benefits of with the DAA are not supported by the current available literature. The issues regarding the difficult learning curve, rate of complications, operative time, requirement for trauma tables and image intensifier should be taken into account by surgeons starting with the DAA in THA.

Dual mobility components for total hip arthroplasty provide for an additional articular surface, with the goals of improving range of motion, jump distance, and overall stability of the prosthetic hip joint. A large polyethylene head articulates with a polished metal acetabular component, and an additional smaller metal or ceramic head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. New components have been released for use in North America over the past eight years and additional modular designs will be forthcoming. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series have shown satisfactory results for this indication at medium-term follow-up times. The author has used dual mobility components on two occasions to salvage a failed constrained liner. However, at least one center reported failure of dual mobility if the abductor mechanism is absent. There are important concerns with dual mobility, including late polyethylene wear causing intra-prosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data with most designs. Modular dual mobility components, with screw fixation, are the author's first choice for the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, total hips, large head unipolar arthroplasties, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are more recent concerns of iliopsoas tendonitis, elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intra-prosthetic dissociation following attempted closed reduction. However, in 2016, a dual mobility component, rather than a constrained liner, may be the preferred solution in revision surgery to prevent and manage recurrent dislocation.

In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease).

However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options, available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below.

Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability

Technique of cementing liner into shell: score acetabular shell if no holes, score liner in spider web configuration, all one or two millimeters of cement mantle

Results: Constrained Dual Mobility Liner – For Dislocation: 56 Hips, 10 year average follow-up, 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. For Difficult Revisions: 101 hips, 10 year average follow-up, 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening. Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips, 3.6 year average follow-up (2–10 years), 2 of 31 failures.

Infection is still a major problem in implant surgery. Most infections are caused by bacteria that enter the wound at the time of the operation. Although prophylactic antibiotics given intravenously have been shown to be effective if given during the correct time frame, the concentration of local antibiotics in the knee in response to intravenous antibiotics is about 1/3 that achieved in the serum, and the level is transient. The concentration of antibiotics in the joint fluid achieved with antibiotics applied locally during surgery is 1000 times higher, and can be maintained throughout the procedure. High concentration persists in drainage fluid for 24 hours after surgery.

Studies done with use of local antibiotics in spinal implant surgery indicate a major reduction in the rate of infection, and cost analysis shows a remarkable monetary benefit to this effect.

Local antibiotic irrigation during implant surgery is inexpensive, easy, and effective.

There is no doubt that peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one the most terrible complications of joint arthroplasty. There has been a surge of interest in PJI in recent years as this problem moves to be the last frontier in joint arthroplasty.

There are a number of strategies employed for prevention of PJI. Irrigation of the surgical site with various irrigation solutions is one such strategy as it helps reduce bioburden in the wound and reduce the potential for subsequent infection.

Although the irrigation solution may work by dilution phenomenon alone, some believe that bactericidal or bacteriostatic agents may be added to the irrigation solution to increase its efficacy. Addition of antibiotics (Abx) to the irrigation solution stems from the same reasoning.

There are a number of serious issues related to the addition of Abx to the irrigation solution or in fact, for pouring into the wound (like the vancomycin powder).

Efficacy: There are no randomised prospective studies to demonstrate that addition of Abx to the irrigation solution improves “kill”. To do such a study would be logistically challenging. Basic science studies and other clinical studies with a small number of patients have failed to prove the efficacy of Abx in the irrigation solution. In fact, I would argue that the use of agents like dilute betadine is much more likely to be effective in reduction of bioburden without having many of the issues related to the use of Abx in irrigation solution.

Emergence of Resistance: Some may argue what would one lose by adding Abx to the wound or the irrigation solution. The modern society is facing an emerging catastrophe. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), if it persists, will kill more people than cancer by the year 2050. Annually 1000s of patients die of ESKAPE or AMR related issues. A recent task force convened by the British government produced a report about AMR which is sobering. The main finding of the task force was that continued liberal use of Abx will lead to further escalation of the AMR crisis that threatens the modern society. The guidelines by the CDC, that are about to be published, will discourage clinicians from pouring Abx into wounds and asks clinicians to exercise Abx stewardship.

Expense: There are costs associated with the use of Abx in any circumstance including their addition to irrigation solution. With over 1 million joint arthroplasties being done in the US alone, this cost can be substantial.

Hypersensitivity reactions: The use of Abx is not without problems. There have been a few fatalities associated with the use of Abx in patients with recognised and possibly unrecognised hypersensitivity to antibiotics.

Introduction: The goal is to avoid letting femoral deformity force suboptimal implant position/fixation. Suboptimal implant position has an adverse effect on hip biomechanics and often on hip function and durability.

Classification: Practical approach to femoral deformities: categorise into 3 main groups: Very proximal, Subtrochanteric, Distal.

Management: Management of distal deformities: Most can be ignored if there is sufficient room to place conventional femoral implant. Management of proximal deformities: Option 1: Use implants that allow satisfactory positioning despite deformity…or… Option 2: Remove the deformity.

Management of subtrochanteric level deformities: These are the most difficult. Problems: Too proximal to ignore, Too distal to bypass.

Main treatment options: Resurfacing THA, Short stem THA, Corrective osteotomy with THA.

Corrective osteotomy with THA: Perform osteotomy at level of deformity, In most cases a corrective osteotomy that creates a transverse osteotomy junction is simplest, Use an implant that provides reliable fixation in the femur (usually uncemented), Use implant that provides fixation of the proximal and distal fragments

Conclusions: Majority of proximal femoral deformities managed with one-stage procedure: Excise deformity and replace with metal, Implants that allow ignoring deformity, Corrective osteotomy.

Few will disagree that the best femoral head that a young patient can have is his or her own, native femoral head. In the active, healthy patient under age 60 with a displaced femoral neck fracture, well-done, timely ORIF presents the best chance of preserving the patient's native femoral head. Arthroplasty is generally reserved for older patients, over age 60, where attempts at ORIF in this setting have demonstrated failure rates over 40%. “Physiologic age” is a somewhat nebulous term that takes into account the health and ambulatory status of the patient. For example, a 52-year-old with end stage renal failure, severe osteoporosis, and a displaced femoral neck fracture may best be treated with arthroplasty. However, in reality, such situations are quite rare. Recent studies have documented that approximately 80% of young patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with ORIF will keep their own femoral head for 10 years after injury. The variables under the surgeon's control include timing of fixation, quality of reduction, accurate implant placement and implant selection, and capsulotomy. All of these variables potentially affect outcomes. Fractures in this young age group are frequently high shear angle (vertical) Pauwels type 3 fractures, and benefit from fixed angle fixation. The author prefers anatomic reduction and stabilization with a sliding hip screw and a superiorly placed derotation screw. Careful attention to detail is important to obtain an anatomic reduction, which is the most important variable in the outcome of these challenging injuries.

Despite our best efforts, orthopaedic surgeons do not always achieve desired results in acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although ideal abduction and anteversion angles vary depending on surgeon preference, patient factors and anatomy, studies have shown that improperly positioned cups lead to increased failure rates in THA. While there have been many technological advancements in THA, including using CT-guided and fluoroscopic techniques, the cost for the hospital and time required to use this technology sometimes force hospitals not to use them. New advancements in digital radiography and image analysis software allow contemporaneous assessment of cup position in real-time during the surgical procedure. Intra-operative, or “trial radiographs” with the patient in lateral decubitus position can be digitally manipulated to match pre-operative radiographs obtained with patients in the supine position to enable calculation of the abduction and anteversion angle in these patients. In our single surgeon experience, digital radiography takes approximately 4–6 seconds in order to obtain an AP pelvic radiograph. The use of the software to measure the cup position adds only 1–2 minutes to the operative time and minimises interference with workflow. The adjustments that can be made intra-operatively with this technology allow the surgeon to learn what factors in his surgical approach and technique are useful in achieving the desired component position. This allows the surgeon to have precise control over the cup position during the operation rather than experience disappointment and frustration while viewing the post-operative film. This cost-effective and efficient tool allows the surgeons to achieve the best results for their patients in real time without having to leave the operating room.

In his classic monograph entitled Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip, which was published in 1979, John Charnley dedicated a chapter to thromboembolic complications. The overall incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) was approximately 8% and the incidence of death from PE approximately 1%. Surveys of orthopaedic surgeons who undertake total joint replacement conducted by The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), 30 years later, showed that there was still no consensus as to the best form of prophylaxis with a wide variation of methods being used.

In the past 3 years, for the first time there is uniformity in the recommendations of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Both groups have reached an agreement that the rate of DVT formation is not the ideal endpoint to use when assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis after joint replacement, as had been done in previous drug trials. Most of these DVTs are asymptomatic and of questionable clinical significance. At least one recent study brings into question the association between the rate of DVT formation and that of subsequent symptomatic events. Both groups also focus on minimizing iatrogenic bleeding complications, which can lead to compromised clinical results, including limited movement and pain in the case of knee replacement and increased risk of infection in both knee and hip replacement. To further complete the uniformity of approach in the United States, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) that monitors hospital compliance with VTE prophylaxis of hospitalised patients, has also changed their policy. Beginning January 2014, either aspirin or a compression device has been considered as acceptable measures for THR, TKR and hip fracture. The remarkable success reported from many centers with the use of aspirin and/or the use of a mobile compression device in patients without major risk factors, such as a prior history of symptomatic VTE, clearly indicate that aggressive pharmacoprophylaxis is not necessary for the vast majority of patients who undergo joint replacement.

Management of recurrent instability of the hip requires careful assessment to determine any identifiable causative factors. While plain radiographs can give a general impression, CT is the best methodology for objective measurement. Variables that can be measured include: prosthetic femoral anteversion, comparison to contralateral native femoral anteversion, total offset from the medial wall of the pelvis to the lateral side of the greater trochanter, comparison to total offset on the contralateral side, acetabular inclination, & acetabular anteversion.

Wera et al describe potential causes of instability. These are typed into I. Acetabular Component Malposition; II. Femoral Component Malposition; III. Abductor Deficiency; IV. Impingement; V. Late Wear; and VI. Unknown.

Acetabular component malposition is the most common cause of instability and so measurement of cup orientation is essential. It is well known that excessive or inadequate anteversion can lead to anterior and posterior dislocation respectively but horizontal components are also associated with posterior dislocation due to deficient posterior/inferior acetabular surface.

Similarly, excessive or inadequate femoral anteversion can be easily identified on CT as can insufficient total offset of the reconstructed joint compared to the contralateral side. This can be caused by medialization of the acetabular component.

Abductor deficiency can be a soft-tissue cause of instability, but it certainly isn't the only one. Knowledge of the prior surgical exposure can be instructive. Anterior exposures can be prone to deficient anterior capsule just as posterior exposures can be prone to deficient posterior capsule and short rotators, while anterolateral and lateral exposures can be associated with gluteus minimus and gluteus medius compromise.

Impingement, whether involving implants, bone, or soft tissue are primarily secondary to the above factors, if osteophytes were properly trimmed at the index procedure.

Correction of the incorrect variables is the primary goal of revision for instability and greatly preferable to using salvage options such as dual-mobility or constrained articulations which invoke additional concerns. Ultimately though, such salvage options are necessary if the cause of the instability cannot be determined or can be determined but not corrected. Bracing, while highly inconvenient and sometimes impractical for certain patients, still has a role in specific circumstances. Formal analysis of the unstable prosthetic reconstruction is the key to successful treatment.

Metal-on-metal (MOM) hip arthroplasty has been associated with a variety of new failure modes that may be unfamiliar to surgeons who traditionally perform metal-on-polyethylene THR. These failure modes include adverse local tissue reaction to metal debris, hypersensitivity to metal debris, accelerated wear/metallosis, pseudotumours, and corrosion. A significant number of patients with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty may present to surgeons for routine followup, concern over their implant, or frank clinical problems.

A common issue with MOM hip arthroplasty that can lead to accelerated wear and failure is implant malposition. Malposition of a hard-on-hard bearing can lead to edge loading and accelerated wear at the articular surfaces, which will lead to elevation in blood metal ion levels and metallosis. Distinct from this failure mode is the possibility of metal hypersensitivity, which is believed to be an immunologically mediated reaction to normal amounts of metal debris. Because a modular MOM THR has multiple junctions and tapers that come into contact with one another, there also is the possibility of non-articular metal debris production and corrosion. This type of corrosion reaction can lead to soft tissue destruction not commonly seen with hip resurfacing.

Therefore, it is important for orthopaedic surgeons to be aware of the intricacies of following a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty and to be able to interpret test results such as metal ion levels and cross-sectional imaging. Furthermore, there is a difference in the incidence of problems depending upon the type of implant: hip resurfacing, small-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip replacement, and large diameter head MOM THR. This presentation will discuss the importance of routine monitoring and followup for patients with MOM THR, as well as the utility of measuring blood metal ion levels. The published risk stratification algorithm from the Hip Society will be reviewed.

For learning any new technique the main principle to follow is: learn the technique thoroughly from start to finish and adopt it as taught, without attempting to modify it until you are very familiar with it. Orthopaedic table enhanced anterior approach THA (ATHA) is at this point a well-established teachable and repeatable technique though its safety and efficacy depends on adherence to details. These technical details have evolved to become part of the technique since I first taught it at a course in 2003. The technical details and innovations have utilised the invaluable input from high volume expert surgeons as well as from less experienced surgeons taking on the challenges of learning.

Considering anterior approach (AA), three technical aspects can be a “mental block” for the uninitiated surgeon: 1) supine position, 2) the orthopaedic table, 3) checking cup position, leg length and offset with the image intensifier/C-arm. Keep in mind that though you may have been initially trained and experienced with lateral position, a flat table and no x-ray checks, these three technical aspects greatly facilitate Anterior Approach and enhance its repeatability, safety, accuracy and overall “ease of use”.

Anterior approach technical instruction is available at a number of venues and the preceding is consistent with the surgeon developed technique taught at courses. Visiting a surgeon who is expert in AA can also provide an effective supplemental educational experience.

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 in dislocation and instability, peri-prosthetic fracture, leg length discrepancy, infection, and more recently, hypersensitivity reactions. Meticulous surgical technique including component placement is essential. 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.

Bone is a dynamic organ with remarkable regenerative properties seen only otherwise in the liver. However, bone healing requires vascularity, stability, growth factors, a matrix for growth, and viable cells to obtain effective osteosynthesis. We rely on these principles not only to heal fractures, but also achieve healing of benign bone defects. Unfortunately, we are regularly confronted with situations where the local environment and tissue is insufficient and we must rely on our “biologic tool box.” When the process of bone repair requires additional assistance, we often look to bone grafting to provide an osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and/or osteogenic environment to promote bone healing and repair.

The primary workhorses of bone grafting include autogenous bone, cadaver allograft, and bone graft substitutes. Among the first types of bone graft used and still used in large quantities today include autogenous and cadaver allograft bone. Allografts are useful because they are present in multiple forms that conform to the desired situation. But autogenous bone graft is considered the gold standard because it possesses all the fundamental properties to heal bone. However, it has been associated with high rates of donor site morbidity and typically requires an inpatient hospitalization following the procedure only adding to the associated costs.

The first bone graft substitute used was calcium sulfate in 1892, and over the past 122 years advancements have achieved improved material properties of calcium sulfate and helped usher in additional bioceramics for bone grafting. Today there are predominantly four types of bioceramics available, which include calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. They come in multiple forms ranging from pellets and solid blocks to injectable and moldable putty. In comparison to autogenous bone graft, the primary limitation of bioceramics are the lack of osteogenic and osteoinductive properties. Bioceramics work by creating an osteoconductive scaffold to promote osteosynthesis. The options of bone graft substitutes don't end with these four types of bioceramics. Composite bioceramics take advantage of the differing biomechanical properties of these four basis types of bioceramics to develop improved materials. To overcome the lack of osteoinductive and osteogenic properties growth factors or bone marrow aspirate can be added to the bioceramic. As a result, the list of combinations available in our “biologic tool box” continues to expand. More than 20 BMPs have been identified, but only BMP-2 and BMP-7 have FDA approval.

As we look forward to areas of future research and need within orthobiologics, some will likely come in the near future while others are much further in the future. We will continue to strive for the ideal bone graft substitute, which will have similar osteoinductive properties as autograft. The ultimate bone graft substitute will likely involve stem cells because it will allow an alternative to autogenous bone with the same osteogenic potential.

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

DISCUSSION: An extensively coated, diaphyseal filling component reliably achieves successful fixation in the majority of revision femurs. The surgical technique is straightforward and we continue to use this type of device in the majority of our revision total hip arthroplasties. However, in the severely damaged femur (Type IIIB and Type IV), other reconstructive options may provide improved results. Based on our results, the following reconstructive algorithm is recommended for femoral reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: TYPE I: In a Type I femur, there is minimal loss of cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Cemented or cementless fixation can be utilised. If cemented fixation is selected, great care must be taken in removing the neo-cortex often encountered to allow for appropriate cement intrusion into the remaining cancellous bone. TYPE II: In a Type II femur, there is extensive loss of the metaphyseal cancellous bone and thus fixation with cement is unreliable. In this cohort of patients, successful fixation was achieved using a diaphyseal fitting, extensively porous coated implant in 26 of 29 cases (90%) However, as the metaphysis is supportive, a cementless implant that achieves primary fixation in the metaphysis can be utilized. TYPE III A: In a Type IIIA femur, the metaphysis is non-supportive and an extensively coated stem of adequate length is utilised to ensure that more than 4 cm of scratch fit is obtained in the diaphysis. TYPE III B: Based on the poor results obtained with a cylindrical, extensively porous coated implant, our present preference is a modular, cementless, tapered stem with flutes for obtaining rotational stability. Excellent results have been reported with this type of implant and by virtue of its tapered design, excellent initial axial stability can be obtained even in femurs with a very short isthmus. Subsidence has been reported as a potential problem with this type of implant and they can be difficult to insert. However, with the addition of modularity to many systems that employ this concept of fixation, improved stability can be obtained by impacting the femoral component as far distally as needed while then building up the proximal segment to restore appropriate leg length. TYPE IV: In a Type IV femur, the isthmus is completely non-supportive and the femoral canal is widened. Cementless fixation cannot be reliably used in our experience, as it is difficult to obtain adequate initial implant stability that is required for osseointegration. Reconstruction can be performed with impaction grafting if the cortical tube of the proximal femur is intact. However, this technique can be technically difficult to perform, time consuming and costly given the amount of bone graft that is often required. Although implant subsidence and peri-prosthetic fractures have been associated with this technique, it can provide an excellent solution for the difficult revision femur where cementless fixation cannot be utilised. Alternatively, an allograft-prosthesis composite can be utilised for younger patients in an attempt to reconstitute bone stock and a proximal femoral replacing endoprosthesis used for more elderly patients.

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Cemented THA has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long-term results. Although showing decreasing popularity in North America, it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in Europe and other parts of the world. Various older and recent studies presented excellent long-term results, for cemented fixation of the cup as well as the stem. Besides optimal component orientation, a proper cementing technique is of major importance to assure longevity of implant fixation. Consequently a meticulous bone bed preparation assures the mechanical interlock between the implant component, cement and the final bone bed. Pre-operative steps as proper implant sizing/ templating, ensuring an adequate cement mantle thickness, and hypotensive anaesthesia, minimizing bleeding at the bone cement interface, are of major importance. Additionally, femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient.

The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm.

Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients.

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, 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 pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, 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 inch 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.

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects.

Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In two studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a matched cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems.

As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction.

Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently, at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems.

Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice.

Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done through an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this system more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem.

In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution, we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases

Porous-coated acetabular hemispherical components have proven successful in all but the most severe revision acetabular defects. A revision jumbo porous coated component has been defined as a cup with minimum diameter of 66 mm in men and 62 mm in women. In published studies this size cup is used in 14% – 39% of acetabular revisions. The advantages of this technique are ease of use, most deficiencies can be treated without structural graft, host bone contact with the porous surface is maximised, and the hip center is generally normal. Jumbo cups are typically used in Paprosky type 2, 3A, and many 3B defects. Requirements for success include circumferential acetabular exposure, an intact posterior column, and much of the posterior wall. The cup should be stable with a press-fit between the ischium and anterior superior acetabulum with the addition of some superior lateral support. Additional support is provided with multiple dome or rim screws. Survivorship of the metal shell with revision for any reason has been reported to be 80% – 96% at time frames from 15 – 20 years. The most common post-operative complication is dislocation.

Acetabular defects often result from osteolysis with or without component loosening. The goals of acetabular reconstruction in the face of significant rim or column deficiencies are to create a stable acetabular construct, which will facilitate acetabular component biologic fixation and long-term stability. Four reconstructive techniques have emerged to treat these defects: 1) Large allografts, 2) Cup / Cage constructs, 3) Metallic augments and uncemented hemispherical cups, and 4) Triflange custom implants.

While all of these techniques have demonstrated success, we have elected to pursue triflange implants to improve fixation on host bone, allow modular liner options, facilitate enhanced fixation surfaces, match patient complex geometries, opportunity to utilise locking screws, and possibly reduce surgical operative time. Furthermore, screw paths and lengths can be planned pre-operatively along with custom pelvic model generation which makes surgical exposure and reconstructive more understandable.

Multiple studies have shown excellent survivorship in series of the most challenging acetabular reconstructions.

Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft, avoiding the potential for later graft resorption and the resulting loss of mechanical support that can follow. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring.

Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants a decade ago: Type 1 – augment screwed onto the superolateral acetabular rim in a “flying buttress” configuration for treatment of a segmental rim defect, Type 2 – augment placed superiorly against host and then fixed (with cement) to the acetabular component adjacent to the cup to fill a mainly elliptical cavitary defect, and Type 3 – augment(s) placed medial to the cup to fill a protrusio type cavitary or combined cavitary segmental defect of the superomedial or medial wall, and allow peripheral cup placement against the still intact acetabular rim. In all cases the acetabular component and augment interface is fixed together with cement, with care to prevent any cement extrusion between any implant and the bone. When possible, we now prefer to place the acetabular component first and fix it provisionally with 2 or more screws, and then place the augments second as this is technically quicker and easier. This order of insertion is only possible though in type 1 and a few select type 2 cases. Type 3 cases always require placement of one or more augments first, before cup insertion. Supplemental cancellous bone graft is used routinely, but the need for structural bone is avoided.

Highly porous metal acetabular augments are an infrequently needed, but extremely valuable, versatile and reliable adjunctive fixation method for use with uncemented acetabular components during complex revision THA associated with major bone deficiency. Smaller (often female) patients are more likely to require this approach as reaming away defects to allow insertion of a jumbo cup is more difficult in small patients with a smaller AP dimension to the acetabular columns and less local bone for implant support. Intermediate term durability and apparent radiographic incorporation has been very good despite the complex reconstructions originally required. This technique can allow the avoidance of structural bone grafting for even the most massive of bone defect problems, but additional followup is needed to see how durable these encouraging results are over the longer term.

Revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is being performed with increasing frequency. However, outcomes of repeated revisions have been rarely reported in the literature, especially for severe defects. Cup revision can be a highly complex operation depending on the bone defect. In acetabular defects like Paprosky types 1 and 2 porous cementless cups fixed with screws give good results. Modern trabecular metal designs improve these good results. Allografts are useful for filling cavitary defects. In acetabular defects Paprosky types 3A and 3B, especially the use of trabecular metal cups, wedges, buttresses and cup-cage systems can produce good results. Difficult cases in combination with pelvic discontinuity require reconstruction of the acetabulum with acetabular plates or large cup-cages to solve these difficult problems. However, there is still no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing hips with bone loss. Although the introduction of ultraporous metals has significantly increased the surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised hips, there remain some that cannot be managed readily using cups, augments, or cages. In such situations custom acetabular components may be required. Individual implants represent yet another tool for the reconstructive surgeon. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss. Ensuring long-term outcome, mechanical stability has a greater impact than restoring an ideal center of rotation. However, despite our consecutive case series there are no mid- to long-term results available so far. Re-revision for failed revision THA acetabular components is a technically very challenging condition.

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique.

At our center we use three types of cage constructs –

Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important.

In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity.

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised hip. Topics covered will include: (1) Preferred exposure in multiply operated hip (when to use ETO, when not to use ETO, which type of ETO to use); (2) Implant removal: technical tips for cup removal; (3) Bone loss: favored acetabular reconstruction in severe bone loss (when to use cancellous graft, bulk graft, metal augments); favored acetabular reconstruction methods for different categories of bone loss; favored femoral reconstruction methods for multiply operated hip; (4) Favored methods of preventing/managing hip instability (large head, dual mobility, constrained implants) in multiply operated hip; (5) When to accept resection arthroplasty as definitive procedure.

The prevalence of pseudotumours in patients with large-head metal-on-metal (MOM) THA has been the subject of implant recalls and warnings from various regulatory agencies. To date, there is no consensus on whether ultrasound or MRI is superior for the detection and following the progression of pseudotumours. Ultrasound is relatively cheap but can be operator dependent. MARS MRI has the advantage of excellent visibility of the soft tissue. However, MRI comes at a marked increase cost and takes about twice as long to perform.

At our institution, we prospectively compared ultrasound to MRI for pseudotumour detection in an asymptomatic cohort of patients with MOM THAs.

We enrolled 40 patients with large-head MOM THAs in the study. The mean age was 54 years (range, 34–76 years). The mean time from surgery was 54 months (range, 40–81 months). There were 28 men and 12 women. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI using slice encoding for metal artifact correction. The gold standard was defined as follows: if both ultrasound and MRI agreed, this was interpreted as concordant and the result was considered accurate.

Ultrasound and MRI agreed in 37 of 40 patients (93%). The prevalence of pseudotumours was 31% (12 of 39) in our cohort. Twenty-three of 39 patients (59%) had completely normal tests and four (10%) had simple fluid collections. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 96% while MRI had a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%.

Conclusions: A negative ultrasound rules out pseudotumour in asymptomatic patients as this test is 100% sensitive. Given its lower cost, we recommend ultrasound as the initial screening tool for pseudotumours.

More recently, Kwon et al have compared ultrasound to MARS MRI for following the progression of pseudotumours. They found a strong agreement between the 2 modalities for assessing change in size and consistency of pseudotumours.

Surface replacement of the hip was established in the 1970's as a bone preserving alternative to total hip replacement. However, problems with femoral neck fracture, osteolysis, and component loosening led to early failures and an abandonment of the procedure.

The modern generation of hip resurfacing, however, has improved upon past results with new implant designs and materials. Better surgical guides and a short femoral stem allow for more accurate placement of the implants. A metal-on-metal articulation creates a larger diameter bearing and avoids polyethylene wear debris. Also paramount in the recent successes of surface replacement are refinements in surgical techniques, leading to more accurate component positioning, avoidance of neck notching, and an appreciation of the femoral head blood supply. It has been well-established that surgeons with higher volumes of hip resurfacing operations have a lower complication rate. The mid-term results of these newer hip resurfacing devices, coupled with appropriate patient selection and good surgical technique, have been encouraging.

Although, more recently, surface replacement has come under fire because of the metal-on-metal articulation, the Australian National Joint Registry finds that a certain group of patients has greater survivorship with resurfacing than with total hip replacement. Additionally, the benefits of surface replacement include the preservation of bone, a lower dislocation rate, and potentially a higher activity level. Therefore, the presenter feels that surface replacement arthroplasty is still a viable option, for the right patient and surgeon.

The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become an extremely familiar concept over the last 8 to 10 years. There has been growing pressure to utilise this approach driven by the lay press, implant manufacturers looking for an edge, as well as from surgeons looking for a marketing advantage. This media and industry presence could leave many surgeons feeling that we delay adoption of the DAA at the risk of losing patients or at minimum must have a good explanation as to why we have chosen not to perform “that surgery where you come in from the front.”

The atmosphere of perceived superiority of DAA has occurred in spite of numerous publications identifying unique risks and complications, including steeply increased complication rates in the “learning curve”, while lacking data identifying its promised advantages when compared to the “modern posterior approach” to THA. It persists despite a recent prospective comparative study that failed to identify any clinical advantages for the anterior THA versus a “mini-posterior” THA and other evidence from state joint registries that has shown the dislocation rate of the DAA is not significantly different from posterior hip approaches.

It essential to understand the considerations that differentiate traditional posterior THA from “modern” posterior-based THA. The advancements made in pain management, rapid rehabilitation and patient education all contribute substantially to the enhanced recovery of the “modern THA”. Furthermore, the extensile exposures such as the Moore, Gibson or Kocher Langenbeck approaches are no longer the type of “posterior” approach that is applied to routine primary THA. Many iterations of posterior-based approaches are now performed with a far more limited and soft tissue preserving approach. It is the purpose of this brief presentation to describe the clinical results of 1000 consecutive hips performed using one such “modern THA,” which has allowed us to obtain early recovery benefits, including the outpatient setting. This is achieved without the additional risk profile assumed with the DAA and with an easily extensile approach. Through these examples we can show that not only is “the back” back, but that for those who were paying attention, it is clear it never really went away.

Precision planning with correct sizing and placement of components is critical to proper execution of total hip arthroplasty. While the desire to achieve excellent outcomes has always been a surgeon's goal, value-based care programs such as the Comprehensive Joint Replacement (CJR) program apportion real expenditures for the cost of treating complications such as fracture or dislocation to the participants. Such accountability accentuates the importance of optimizing the planning and execution of joint replacement surgery. Acetabular component sizing and placement in particular remains the single greatest challenge to surgeons. This is simply due to the fact that the requisite spatial information is not available to the surgeon during conventional surgery. Basing component placement on local anatomical landmarks without knowing the patient-specific nature of those landmarks ensures poor component placement in many cases. As a result, studies demonstrate that at least ½ of all acetabular components placed using conventional methods are malpositioned.

Potential solutions include the using of intra-operative radiographic analysis, traditional navigation and robotics. Unfortunately, measurements of plain radiographs have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate due to lack of knowledge of and correction for beam center location, magnification, beam divergence, and position of the pelvis itself on the image. As a result, such quantification of unquantifiable images can systematically lead to poor decisions. Intra-operative radiograph measurement methods have been shown to lead to anteversion measurement errors as high as 27 degrees. Similarly, there is a perception that performing total hip arthroplasty through the anterior exposure can result in reliable cup positioning when fluoroscopy is used, but such procedures have also been shown to have a high incidence of cup malposition.

Image-free navigation, image-based navigation, and image-based robotics can potentially lead to accurate component placement. Adoption of these technologies, however, has been limited, possibly due to the increase in time of use, complexity, and cost of these systems. Robotic systems have also proven to be potentially hazardous and inaccurate in routine clinical use. A cloud-based, patient-specific hip surgery planning and smart-tool cup navigation system was developed to address the most common technical problems affecting hip arthroplasty (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Boston, MA). The methodology provides the surgeon with a full 3D plan of the surgery including cup size, cup orientation, stem size, head length, femoral anteversion, and planned change in leg length and offset. The application controlling the plan allows the surgeon to instantly change the plan and shows the implants in both 3D and on multiplanar cross-sectional views. The associated smart tool is adjusted specifically for that patient and when docked, provides orientation information to the surgeon.

The system has been proven to be robust, with repeated studies showing accurate cup placement in 100% of cases including by an independent study. This compares to a recent study of robotic methods that measured 88% for inclination and 84% for anteversion.

Cloud-based 3D planning combined with smart mechanical navigation of cup placement offers the optimum combination of accuracy, speed, and simplicity for solving the ubiquitous problems of acetabular component malorientation and provides critical pre-operative information including acetabular and femoral component sizes, planned femoral anteversion, and planned changes in leg length and offset of the surgery.

A) Mastering the Art of Cemented Femoral Stem Fixation

Introduction: Fixation of cemented femoral stems is reproducible and provides excellent early recovery of hip function in patients 60–80 years old. The durability of fixation has been evaluated up to 20 years with 90% survivorship. The mode of failure of fixation of cemented total hip arthroplasty is multifactorial; however, good cementing techniques and reduction of polyethylene wear have been shown to reduce its incidence. The importance of surface roughness for durability of fixation is controversial. This presentation will describe my personal experience with the cemented femoral stem over 30 years with 3 designs and surface roughness (RA) ranging from 30–150 microinches.

Results: Since 1978, three series of cemented THA have been prospectively followed using periodic clinical and radiographic evaluations. All procedures were performed by the author using the posterior approach. Excellent results were noted and Kaplan-Meier survivorship ranged from 90% to 99.5% in the best case scenario at 10–20 year follow-up.

Conclusion: With a properly-designed femoral stem, good cement technique, proper cement mantle, and surface roughness of 30–40 microinches, the cemented femoral stem provides a durable hip replacement in patients 60 to 80 years of age with up to 95% survivorship at 10 to 20 years.

B) Cemented Primary Acetabulum

Introduction: I am going to present a technique of cementing an all-polyethylene socket, a brief review of our clinical experience, and all-polyethylene socket design features. Since 1991, we have been using direct compression molded polyethylene sockets. The minimum thickness of polyethylene is 8 mm. We keep the socket orientation at 45 degrees of lateral opening and 15 degrees of anteversion. The preparation of the socket involves multiple fixation holes with Midas Rex. The bone is cleaned with water lavage and heated cement.

Radiographic Features: The cement/bone interface has been classified into three types on radiographs. Type 1 has a perfect merge of the cement into the cancellous bone in all three zones. Type III interface shows radiolucency in one or more zones.

A commonly asked question is, “is this technique reproducible?” The answer is yes.

Our Data: We have looked at our all-polyethylene socket from 1992 to 1998 and the total number of hips are over 1,000, with a follow-up of 2–8 years. We have not revised a single socket for fixation failure.

Summary: A cemented socket is indicated in patients 60 years and older with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Relative contraindications are excessive bleeding, extensive cyst formation, weak cancellous bone such as in rheumatoid, JRA, DDH, and protrusion patients. Cemented THA in patients 60 years and older with DJD and molded all-polyethylene cup have provided the best results in terms of a high degree of reproducibility, high quality of function, and durability.

The incidence of major complications following total joint arthroplasty is low, however, surgeons often continue to see patients regularly to monitor outcomes and the performance of the implant. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based follow-up compared to in-person assessment following primary total hip or total knee arthroplasty. We also determined patient satisfaction and preference for follow-up method.

Patients who were at least 12 months post-operative were randomised to complete either a web-based follow-up or to have their appointment at the clinic, as usual. We excluded patients who had revision surgery, osteolysis, or identified radiographic issues. We report the frequency of web-based patients who had an issue missed by using the web-based follow-up. We recorded travel costs and time associated with each follow-up, and any health care resource use for one year following the assessment. We conducted a cost analysis from the health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) and societal perspectives. All costs are presented in 2012 Canadian dollars. We used descriptive statistics to summarise the satisfaction and preference results and compared satisfaction between groups using Pearson's chi-square test.

Two hundred-twenty nine patients completed the study (111 usual-care, 118 web-based), with a mean age of 69 years (range, 38–86 years). There were no patients who had an issue missed by the web-based follow-up. The cost for the web-based assessment was significantly lower from both the societal perspective (mean difference, $-64; 95% confidence interval, $-79 to $−48; p < 0.01) and the health-care payer perspective (mean difference, $−27; 95% CI, $−29 to $−25; p < 0.01). Ninety-one patients (82.0%) in the usual-care group indicated that they were either extremely or very satisfied with the follow-up process compared with 90 patients (75.6%) in the web-based group (p < 0.01; odds ratio = 3.95; 95% CI = 1.79 to 8.76). Similarly, 92.8% of patients in the usual-care group were satisfied with the care they received from their surgeon, compared to 73.9% of patients in the web-based group (p < 0.01, OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.73 to 2.57). Forty-four percent of patients preferred the web-based method, 36% preferred the usual method, and 16% had no preference (p = 0.01).

Web-based follow-up is a feasible, clinically effective alternative to in-person clinic assessment, with moderate to high patient satisfaction. A web-based follow-up assessment has lower mean costs per person compared to the usual method of in-person follow-up from both a societal and health-care payer perspective. The web-based assessment may introduce additional efficiency by redirecting limited outpatient resources to those awaiting first consultation, patients who have complications, or those who are further post-operative and may require a revision.

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one the most devastating complications of joint arthroplasty. Although PJI is an infrequent complication (the reported incidence is 1%-2% in the United States), it is the most common indication for revision total knee arthroplasty in the Medicare population and the third most frequent indication for revision total hip arthroplasty. Moreover, the prevalence of PJI appears to be on the rise, with a projected number exceeding 60,000 to 70,000 cases in the United States by 2020.

It is estimated that more than 25% of revision procedures annually are attributed to PJI and this number is expected to increase in the upcoming years. The increase in the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities among the patient population and the emergence of resistant infecting organisms are some of the reasons for the expected rise in the number of infections that medical community will witness.

The challenges that PJI present to the orthopaedic community are on many fronts. Prevention of PJI has proven to be a difficult task indeed. Effective strategies for prevention of PJI are being refined. The Center for Disease Control will be publishing its updated Surgical Site Prevention Guidelines in the next few months that consists of specific recommendations for prevention of PJI. In recent years, strides are made in introducing novel molecular techniques for diagnosis of PJI, which may stand to change our practices. The current surgical technique for management of PJI, besides the immense cost, fall short of delivering high success to the patients. The major problem in eradication of infection relates to formation of biofilm on the implant surface and internalization of the organisms by affected cells. Biofilm is a sophisticated structure comprising of organisms embedded in multiple layers of glycoccalyx that allows the organisms to evade host immunity and is impenetrable to antibiotics. These organisms are capable of communicating through molecular mechanisms such as quorum sensing that affords them advantage for survival in the host environment. In recent years strategies to prevent colonization of the implant surface, an essential first step in formation of biofilm, or biofilm disruption techniques have been introduced. A recent International Consensus meeting on PJI that assembled more than 350 experts identified some of the best practices in this field and identified areas in need of future research. Moving into the future, the field of orthopaedics in general and PJI in particular stand to benefit from the discoveries in the field of molecular diagnostics, metabolomics and epigenetics.

Ceramic bearing complications are rare but can cause significant pain and morbidity following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The hard and sharp particulate debris from fractured ceramic components can cause damage to the existing hip prosthesis and jeopardise subsequent revision THA results due to third body wear.

Patients with ceramic fractures can present with sudden onset of pain and dysfunction. Often, the patient will report a noisy hip articulation. Radiographs can range from subtle densities surrounding the hip implant to complete disintegration and loss of sphericity of the femoral head or acetabular liner.

Ceramic component fractures should be treated expeditiously. Revision options for failed ceramic components depend on existing component fixation, position, and locking mechanism and femoral trunnion integrity. In order to retain the implants, the components must be well-fixed, in good position, and have tapers and locking mechanisms that can accept new modular components. Additionally, an extensile exposure and complete synovectomy are necessary to remove the sharp particulate debris. Finally, a new ceramic ball head with a titanium inner sleeve should be used in revisions for fractured ceramics due to their hardness and scratch resistance.

Early results for revision surgery for fractured ceramic components were inconsistent. Allain et al. reported on a series of 105 revisions performed for ceramic head fractures and found that the survivorship at 5 years was only 63%. The authors reported a high reoperation rate and also worse survivorship when the acetabular component was retained, a metal head was used for revisions, age younger than 50 years, and when a complete synovectomy was not performed at the time of revision. More recently, Sharma and colleagues reported on a series of 8 ceramic fractures revised to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation performed with a complete synovectomy. At 10-year follow up, the authors reported on failures; increased wear; or lesser function compared to 6 matched patients undergoing revision using similar implants for other diagnoses. Others have also reported catastrophic failures when revising fractured ceramic components using metal ball heads.

In summary, ceramic bearing complications in THA are rare but catastrophic events. A systematic approach to evaluation and management is necessary to ensure a safe return.

The extended proximal femoral osteotomy has been used primarily in conjunction with cementless fixation, but has been described for use with cemented stems as well. The extended proximal femoral osteotomy is indicated for the removal of well-fixed cemented and cementless implants, as well as removal of cement in patients with a loose femoral component in a well-fixed cement mantle. Although the osteotomy is not required for many femoral revisions, it is an absolute indication in patients with femoral component loosening and subsequent varus remodeling of the proximal femur.

The osteotomy diminishes the risk of an inadvertent fracture of the often compromised greater trochanter especially upon removal of a failed femoral component from its subsided or migrated position. The osteotomy enhances the exposure of the acetabulum which may be difficult in the revision setting due to multiple surgeries, severe migration of the acetabular component or heterotopic ossification.

The extended proximal femoral osteotomy can also be used in the primary setting when a proximal femoral deformity interferes with straight reaming of the femoral canal, such as in patients with various dysplasias, previous corrective osteotomies or malunions.

Implant, surgeon, and patient-related factors all contribute to the risk of revision requiring an ETO. It is shown in the literature that the ETO can be a successful and easy-to-be-performed technique, but it can also lead to a bunch of complications, like peri-prosthetic fracture, loosening of the implant, damage of the isthmus and especially nonunion of the greater trochanter, which could result in an insufficiency limping with positive Trendelenburg Sign.

We do not believe in the necessity of an extended trochanteric osteotomy, which is extremely rarely performed at our institution. In almost all cases, the stem can be removed using an endofemoral approach from the top. Special instruments are necessary, and retrograde slap hammers are helpful. In general, cortical windows may be required to gain access to the bone-implant interface, but only in cases of well-fixed cementless components or if the distal cement is difficult to reach and remove. A full range of narrow and wide osteotomes of various thicknesses should be available. Those are our most important tools. Multiple osteotomes, which are carefully driven between the interfaces from all sides, can be gradually wedged or forced out of their cement mantle, even if stemmed. Generally, cemented and cementless procedures could be considered for reconstruction. We recommend performing the procedure only when the surgeon is proficient. This papers tries to provide such strategies.

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 morselised allograft is impacted by reverse reaming. When reaming is complete and less than 50% bleeding host bone is available for cup stabilization, 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 trabecular metal 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.