The value of joint registries is to (1) provide large scale longitudinal follow-up of classes of implants and individual implants—thereby providing potential for improved performance—and (2) serve as a tripwire for unexpected problem implants which is well appreciated. The purpose of this talk is not to reiterate the value of joint arthroplasty registries, but rather to look at several key findings from joint registries around the world and discuss what these mean for orthopaedic surgery today.

Observation #1: Registries can tell us where the biggest problems are so we can act on them: Example: Early failures—those occurring in the first two years—account for about half of all failures by ten years. Early failures consist of mainly technically related problems and infections. If we can reduce these problems, we can reduce the number of patients having a second surgery after joint replacement by almost half. For one type of early failure (infection), the registry data show rate of infection after THA and TKA has not declined substantially in the last 20 years. We need major innovation in this area to solve this problem. On the other hand, registry data show early failures in older patients after THA are often due to periprosthetic femur fracture: we can solve this problem now with choice of stem fixation or prophylactic wires in high risk patients.

Observation #2: Innovation can and does work! It is not correct to suggest that no new implants have led to improved results. Example: Registry data demonstrate that cross-linked polyethylene bearings have reduced the risk of revision after THA dramatically, especially in younger patients.

Observation #3: Gathering more detailed information, such as patient reported outcomes, at least on limited samples of patients, can provide further insights. Example: Registry data demonstrate much greater variability in clinical outcomes of TKA in younger patients compared to older patients.

Observation #4: Having national registries from different countries provides synergistic information. Example: Combining data from several national registries provides information on performance of femoral heads of different diameter and material that are not available from just one source.

Observation #5: Registries may provide unexpected information that opens unexpected avenues for study. Example: Several registries demonstrate men have a 1.5–2 times higher risk of infection after TKA. We did not know this before. Why is this? Can we reduce it?

Since the market withdrawal of the ASR hip resurfacing in August 2010 because of a higher than expected revision rate as reported in the Australian Joint Replacement Registry (AOAJRR), metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) has become a controversial procedure for hip replacement. Failures related to destructive adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) to metal wear debris have further discredited MoMHRA. Longer term series from experienced resurfacing specialists, however, demonstrate good outcomes with excellent 10- to 15-year survivorship in young and active men. Besides, all hip replacement registries report significantly worse survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 50 compared to older ages. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical than with MoMHRA implants.

The surgical objectives of MoMHRA were to preserve bone stock, maintain normal anatomy and mechanics of the hip joint and to approximate the normal stress transmission to the supporting femoral bone. The functional objectives were better sports participation, less thigh pain and limp, less perception of a leg length difference and a greater perception of a normal hip. Cobb reported that patients with MoMHRA were able to walk faster and with more normal stride length than patients with well performing hip replacements. They also show that function following hip replacement is very good, with high satisfaction rates, but the use of a patient centered outcome measure (PCOM), and objective measures of function reveal substantial inferiority of THA over MoMHRA in two well-matched groups. When coupled with the very strong data regarding life expectancy and infection, this functional data makes a compelling case for the use of resurfacing in active adults.

Recent studies show a possible increase in life expectancy with MoMHRA. Compared with uncemented and cemented total hip replacements, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a significantly lower risk of death in men of all ages. McMinn's investigations additionally suggest a potentially higher mortality rate with cemented total hip replacements. These results have now been confirmed by other centers as well, and confirm that those undergoing MoMHRA have reduced mortality in the long term (up to 10 years) compared with those undergoing THA and that this difference persisted after extensive adjustment for confounding factors.

Early revisions were often due to fracture of the femoral neck while later revisions are associated with loosening and/or ALTR to wear debris. In some studies, revisions of MoMHRA with ALTR have been complicated by an increased risk of re-revision and poor outcome. Component malpositioning is the most common cause of MoMHRA failure. Metal ion measurements are an excellent tool to detect wear at an early stage. The revision analysis highlights the importance of surgical experience, indications and prosthesis design. Use of ion levels, big THA-heads and patient education/compliance were identified as factors improving outcome following MoMHRA revision.

Today's MoMHRA is conservative to the bone. It is the first implant that proves decrease of wear in time, disappearance of wear in longer term with a possible life time survival of the implant, this unrelated to the activity of the patient. If following an international consensus, the right implant is used, with a perfect technique in the right patient, all benefits exceed the problems described in the past.

Over the past 15 years metal on metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) has seen a spectacular resurgence in utilization followed by near abandonment of the procedure. A select group of surgeons still offer the procedure to a select group of patients suggesting that there are benefits of MOMHR over total hip arthroplasty (THA). This is problematic for the following reasons:

1)

MOMHR does not lead to increased survivorship. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the England and Wales National Joint Registry, from countries with high rates of utilization of MOMHR, both report significantly worse survivorship with MOMHR compared to all types of conventional THA. Risk factors for revision of resurfacing were older patients, females, smaller femoral head size, patients with developmental dysplasia, and certain implant designs.

In conclusion, it is relatively straightforward to oppose and argue against the use of hip resurfacings as they have worse outcomes in all National Joint Registries, produce metal ions with significant clinical consequences, are more invasive, are difficult to revise with subsequent inferior outcomes when compared to a conventional primary THA, and do not provide better function. These adverse features come with a premium price when compared to a conventional THA.

Corrosion at metal/metal modular interfaces in total hip arthroplasty was first described in the early 1990s, and the susceptibility of modular tapers to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC), a combination of fretting and crevice corrosion, was subsequently introduced. Since that time, there have been numerous reports of corrosion at this taper interface, documented primarily in retrieval studies or in rare cases of catastrophic failure.

We have reported that fretting corrosion at the modular taper may produce soluble and particulate debris that can migrate locally or systemically, and more recently reported that this process can cause an adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). Based on the type of tissue reaction and the presence of elevated serum metal ion levels, this process appears quite similar to ALTRs secondary to metal on metal bearing surfaces. While modularity in total hip replacement has demonstrable clinical benefits, modular junctions increase the risk of tribocorrosion and the types of ALTRs seen in patients with accelerated metal release from metal-on-metal bearing total hip replacements. The use of modular connections should be minimised in routine primary total hip replacement to avoid tribocorrosion-induced ALTRs.

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

There are several critical design, material, and technique variables that are directly associated with higher or lower incidences of problems associated with modular neck femoral components. Unfortunately, in vitro testing of the fatigue strength of these constructs has failed to predict their behavior in vivo. Designs predicted to tolerate loads that far exceed those experienced in vivo still fail at unacceptably high rates. Titanium alloy neck components subjected to the stresses at the neck-stem junction continue to fail at an unacceptable incidence. CoCr alloy neck components, while theoretically stronger, still fracture and are further compromised by mechanically assisted crevice corrosion, metal hypersensitivity, and rarely, adverse tissue reaction.

Designs that have proven clinical strength and utility universally have larger, more robust junctions that extend into the metaphysis of the femur. While these designs are primarily designed for revision THR, they are occasionally indicated for primary THR. Overall, however, while design options at the neck-stem junction have unmatched clinical utility, no design that does not extend into the metaphysis has proven to be universally reliable. While routine use for primary THR does not appear clinically indicated based on current evidence, modular designs with proven successful proximal junctions appear to be indicated for extreme version or anatomical circumstances.

Dislocation is a particular problem after total hip replacement in femoral neck fractures and elderly, especially female, patients. The increased rate of dislocation in this population is probably due to significant ligamentous laxity in these patients and poor coordination and proprioception. Another population of patients with increased propensity for dislocation is the revision hip replacement patient. Current dislocation rates in these patients can approach 10% with conventional implant systems.

The Dual Mobility total hip system is composed of a cobalt chrome acetabular shell that has a grit blasted, beaded and/or hydroxyapatite coating to improve bone ingrowth. The polyethylene liner is highly crosslinked polyethylene and fits congruently into the cobalt chrome shell and acts like a large femoral head (usually > 40 mm). The femoral head attached to the trunnion is usually 28 mm. The femoral head snaps into the polyethylene liner to acts as a second protection against dislocation.

Indications for the Dual Mobility socket are in the high risk for dislocation patient and particularly in elderly, female patients. It is also indicated in patients with neuromuscular disease who are at more risk to dislocate. To date 237 dual mobility cups have been performed with an average age of 79 and 207 of the procedures in women. The follow up extends to 5.6 years with an average of 3.5. There has been 1 dislocation which occurred after a traumatic event. There have been no mechanical failures, no infections and no other revisions in this series. Interprosthetic dislocation has been reported in long term follow up and there was, in this series, when reduction was performed on the only liner dislocation. Pain relief has been no different than conventional hip replacement and range of motion is unchanged as well.

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

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

The concerns regarding this construct include:

Wear - A large polyethylene head articulating against a polished metal surface may have much greater wear than a conventional metal against polyethylene bearing. Hip simulator data has shown this previously. Additionally there are two articulating surfaces, potentially leading to a greater combined wear than one would see with just a singular surface.

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

As a generic technology, intentionally crosslinked polyethylene has improved the durability of total hip replacement. Regardless of the manufacturing method, the wear rates have been reduced on the order of 90% compared to historical materials, with a substantial reduction in the occurrence of osteolysis. Most of the data is with 28 and 32 mm bearings. Larger diameter bearings have been shown to reduce the occurrence of dislocation. However, there is clinical evidence that volumetric wear is increased with larger diameter crosslinked polyethylene bearings, and this may increase the occurrence of osteolysis. Further, modular liner fracture is more likely with larger diameter bearings (thinner liners), which is generally associated with increased cup abduction angle and/or increased anteversion. Contemporary polymers are better than their predecessors, but there is always opportunity for improvement.

In the 1960s Sir John Charnley introduced to clinical practice his low friction arthroplasty with a highly polished cemented femoral stem. The satisfactory long term results of this and other cemented stems support the use of cement for fixation. The constituents of acrylic cement remained virtually unchanged since the 1960s. However, in the last three decades, advances in the understanding of cement fixation, mixing techniques, application, pressurization, stem materials and design provided further improvements in the clinical results.

The technical changes in cementing technique that proved to be beneficial include femoral preparation to diminish interface bleeding, careful lavage, reduced cement porosity by vacuum mixing, a cement restrictor, pre-heating of the stem and polymer, retrograde canal filling and pressurization with a cement gun, stem centralization and stem geometries that increase the intramedullary pressure and intrusion into the bone of the cement. Some other changes proved to be detrimental and were abandoned, such as the use of Boneloc cement that polymerised at a low temperature, and roughening and pre-coating of stem surface.

In recent years there has been a tendency towards an increased use of cementless femoral fixation for primary hip arthroplasty. The shift in the type of fixation followed the consistent, durable fixation obtained with uncemented acetabular cups, ease of implantation and the poor results of cemented femoral fixation of rough and precoated stems.

Unlike cementless femoral fixation, modern cemented femoral fixation has numerous advantages: it's versatile, durable and can be used regardless of the diagnosis, proximal femoral geometry, natural neck version, and bone quality. It can be used in combination with antibiotics in patients with a history or predisposition for infection. Intraoperative femoral fractures and postoperative thigh pain are extremely rare. Survivorship has not been surpassed by uncemented femoral fixation and it continues to be my preferred form of fixation. However, heavy, young male patients may exhibit a slightly higher aseptic loosening rate.

Three basic design concepts of cementless femoral fixation have emerged. They include: anatomic designs, straight stem designs, and tapered designs. In addition, there have been modular designs. The most successful have been designs that have a metaphyseal sleeve with a tapered stem. A more recent newer concept has been the double taper neck designs which have not performed well in general.

Anatomic Stem Designs: The rationale for an anatomic stem design was to design a component that matched the sagittal plane bow of the femur. The APR (Centerpulse, Austin, Texas) and the PCA (Howmedica, Rutherford, New Jersey) were the initial designs. Although these designs provided excellent micromotion stability, they are not used in their present length today because they could not fit in to all femurs.

Straight Stem Designs: The concept of a straight stem design was to machine the femur to accept the prosthesis. This was done with diaphyseal reaming, proximal broaching, and preparing a proximal triangle to accommodate the proximal metaphyseal portion of the stem. These had previously, and still do, come in proximally coated and distally coated designs. They have proven to be durable long term. The AML fully coated stem (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) was and still is the prototype device.

Tapered Stem Designs: The most popular designs today are the tapered stems. They are inserted either by a broach only, or ream and broach technique. Some only taper in the ML plane and are flat in the AP plane. These are called ML taper or blade devices (Taperloc and Trilock). These are usually inserted broach only. Some have a double taper with proximal fill and include the Zweymuller stem (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana), the Omnifit stem (Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey), the Summit stem, and the Corail stem (both DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana). Some are hydroxyapatite coated (Omnifit and Corail), some are porous coated (Summit), and some are only grit blasted (Zweymuller). Some are broach only including the Zweymuller and Corail, and some are broach and ream including the Omnifit and Summit. Some are tapered throughout, one of which is a Wagner type design, Trilogy (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana). These Wagner type devices are useful in abnormal anatomy (CDH and Perthes).

Modular Stem and Dual Modular Neck Designs: Metaphyseal sleeve modular stem designs are extremely versatile and can be inserted press fit into just about any femoral anatomy. They are most commonly utilised in cases of hip dysplasia with marked femoral anteversion. The S-ROM device is the prototype design. The long term concern with these as well as the double neck tapered devices is fretting and corrosion at the extra modular junctions.

Short Stem Designs: Short stem designs were developed to provide metaphyseal only fixation and to enable easy insertion through small incision techniques, especially those performed through anterior and antero-lateral approaches.

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. 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 preoperative 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 postoperative 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.

Numerous studies have shown highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) to be an extremely low wear bearing surface for total hip arthroplasty (THA) at intermediate term follow-up. Wear rates and the incidence of osteolysis for CoCr femoral heads on XLPE liners appears to be considerably less than what is observed for conventional polyethylene (PE). This has been demonstrated even in younger, more active patients.

Nevertheless, polyethylene wear and associated osteolysis are still a concern, since the indications for THA have been expanded to include younger and more active patients. Both wear simulator and clinical data suggest that ceramic femoral heads can reduce bearing surface wear of conventional PE. There is, however, extremely limited evidence supporting any advantage of ceramic femoral heads over CoCr femoral heads with regards to bearing surface wear of XLPE. This is perhaps due to the relative difficulty in measuring the low wear rates of XLPE bearings in general, regardless of material composition of the femoral head. Although ceramic femoral heads are more scratch resistant and less susceptible to third body wear, their current clinical use to reduce wear of XLPE bearings is, in reality, based on the unproven assumption that use of ceramic femoral heads will have a similar effect on wear reduction as is seen with ceramic on conventional PE bearing couples. Nevertheless, the use of ceramic femoral heads has become common in younger, more active patients.

Recently, corrosion at the head neck junction of modular THA (trunnionosis), has been determined to be the possible source of metal debris and metal ions associated with adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR or ARMD) in THA, including ALVAL and pseudotumors. There is general agreement that trunnionosis results from mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (fretting) of the modular junctions common to nearly all contemporary THA designs. Several design, material and patient factors have been implicated as contributors to this problem including larger diameter femoral heads (>36 mm), reduced femoral neck and taper geometry, flexural rigidity of the taper, and patient body weight and activity level. Data from our multicenter implant retrieval program has shown that corrosion at the head-neck junction of contemporary modular THAs may be reduced with use of ceramic femoral heads. The use of ceramic femoral heads also eliminates the potential for release of cobalt and chromium ions from the taper junctions of titanium alloy stems. In younger patients, the long term effects of cobalt ions released from corrosion at the modular neck junction are still unknown.

Although the surgeon's selection of a ceramic femoral head in combination with a XLPE acetabular liner is likely based on the desire to minimise PE wear, the impact of femoral head composition on taper neck corrosion and ALTR is perhaps more of a concern in 2015. Until the problem of taper neck corrosion is more thoroughly understood and effectively addressed by implant manufacturers, the use of ceramic femoral heads in THA should be considered in the younger or more active patient. The increased cost of ceramic femoral heads creates a dilemma in defining who is “young” enough and “active” enough to be considered an appropriate candidate for a ceramic femoral head in our current environment of bundled care payments, value based purchasing and concern about providing cost-effective health care to our patients.

Recent advancements in biomaterial technology have created novel options for acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). For example, cementless acetabular fixation has become the preferred option, however, there is continued debate concerning whether long-term survivorship is comparable to that of cemented component fixation. Many doubts previously associated with early cementless designs have been addressed with newer features such as improved locking mechanisms, enhanced congruity between the acetabular liner and the shell, and the inclusion of highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Additionally, there has been increased utilization of new porous metals, titanium mesh, and hydroxyapatite (HA) coated implants. However, several retrieval studies have indicated that porous-coated cementless acetabular components can exhibit poor bony ingrowth. Many surgeons in Europe favor cemented fixation, where registry data is favorable for this interface. A surgeon's decision to use a cemented or cementless acetabular component is typically dependent on factors such as patient bone stock, surgical training, and experience. With the frequency of THAs expected to increase, it is particularly important for orthopaedic surgeons to be familiar with appropriate preoperative planning and component selection in an effort to achieve optimal outcomes. Therefore, this talk will outline and describe the options currently available for cementless and cemented acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty.

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, Acetabular fixation, Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation, Femoral fixation, Femoral head size, Bearing surface, Tips for optimizing intraoperative hip stability, Tips for optimizing leg length, Postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, Heterotopic bone prophylaxis, Postoperative pain management, Postoperative rehabilitation protocol, Postoperative activity restrictions, and Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures.

Subcapital fractures about the hip continue to be a common clinical scenario with which we all face. There are estimated to be over 350,000 hip fractures annually in the U.S. with 40% being displaced femoral neck fractures. The mean cost is over $30,000. Optimizing surgical care is essential with the overall goal being to perform the most effective treatment with the lowest risk of reoperation that provides the best postoperative function and pain relief.

In the “young” (which is often defined as whatever age is younger than you!) reduction and internal fixation is often the most effective retaining the native femoral head. The risk of non-union and AVN is often less than potential complications that can follow an arthroplasty with 40% of displaced fractures treated with ORIF eventually requiring reoperation. Essentially for every 100 patients that undergo ORIF for displaced femoral neck fracture, choosing arthroplasty instead results in 17 conversions avoided.

In the “elderly” in general we treat all displaced fractures with a total hip replacement which reduced re-admissions and is more cost effective for displaced femoral neck fractures. Aside from the medical morbidity following an arthroplasty dislocation is the primary concern. We have found the anterolateral approach reduces this significantly. Non-displaced fractures that are valgus impacted and biomechanically stable are treated with cannulated screws. Perhaps it can be argued that a hemiarthroplasty (bipolar or monopolar) has a lower risk of dislocation compared to a total hip replacement if performed by a surgical team with less frequent total hip replacement experience. However, total hip replacement results in less pain and better function when the patients are independent with intact mental status (patient not the surgeon…!).

My algorithm is non-displaced valgus impacted or “stable” fractures undergo cannulated screws and the displaced fractures receive a total hip arthroplasty via an anterolateral approach.

Despite the best of technique when faced with a sub-capital or per-trochanteric fracture, inevitably there are failures of proximal fixation. These situations provide unique challenges for the reconstructive surgeon.

While there are specific issues related to either sub-capital or per-trochanteric fractures, there also are many commonalities. The causes of failure are nonunion, malunion, failure of fixation or avascular necrosis. In all cases, it is imperative to rule out infection. Since the surgery is now elective, the patient's medical status must be optimised prior to the intervention. Basic surgical principles apply to both fracture types. Use the old incision (if possible) and choose an approach that can be extensile. Of course, the old hardware needs to be removed – this task can be quite frustrating, so good preparation and patience is imperative. Retrieve old OP notes to identify the type of hardware so that any special tools needed are available. Hardware can be intra-osseous in location and excavation of the hardware may require bone osteotomy. These patients are at higher risk of postoperative dislocation, so absolute hip stability must be achieved and confirmed in the OR. Bigger heads and dual mobility options improve stability provided that the components are properly positioned and offset and leg length are restored.

Subcapital fractures provide certain specific issues related to stem choice. While, my bias is towards total hip arthroplasty because of better chance of complete pain relief, especially in community ambulators, certainly bipolar arthroplasties can be a satisfactory solution. Stem fixation can be either cemented or cementless.

For per-trochanteric fractures in younger patients, repeat osteosynthesis should be considered if the femoral head is viable. Bone deformity – trochanteric overhang, shaft offset – may necessitate an osteotomy as part of the reconstruction. While proximal fixation primary type stems are often possible, distal fixation revision stems may be required. Any bone defects related to screw holes should be bypassed by the femoral component.

The orthopaedic surgeon is often consulted to manage pathologic fractures due to metastatic disease, even though he or she may not be an orthopaedic oncologist. A good understanding of the principles of management of metastatic disease is therefore important. The skeleton remains a common site for metastasis, and certain cancers have a predilection for bone, namely, tumors of the breast, prostate, lung, thyroid, and kidney. Myeloma and lymphoma also often involve bone. The proximal femur and pelvis are most commonly affected, so we will focus on those anatomic sites. The patient may present with pain and impending fracture, or with actual fracture. Careful preoperative medical optimization is recommended. If the lesion is solitary, or the primary is unknown, the diagnosis must be made by a full workup and biopsy before definitive treatment is planned. For patients with known metastasis (the most common situation), the options for treatment of pathologic lesions of the proximal femur generally center on internal fixation versus prosthetic replacement. Patients with breast or prostate metastasis can live for several years after pathologic fracture, so constructs must be relatively durable. If fixation is chosen, it must be stable enough to allow full weight bearing, since the overwhelming majority of pathologic fractures will never heal. In general, long constructs are chosen to protect the entire length of the bone. Nails should protect the femoral neck as well, so cephalomedullary devices are typically chosen. Megaprostheses can be useful in situations where bony destruction precludes stable internal fixation. Postoperative radiation is recommended after wound healing. Acetabular involvement typically requires reinforcement rings or cement augmentation with the Harrington technique. Careful multi-disciplinary medical management is recommended to minimise complications.

Acetabular fracture treatment outcomes have improved over the past two decades due to the more accurate identification of common fracture patterns, the development of more adequate surgical approaches, and the creation of improved methods for reduction and repair. However, certain cases have a distinctly lower likelihood of a favorable outcome, and in this setting primary arthroplasty as part of the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) may provide the best solution. Acute primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) provides primary stability and immediate pain relief, permits graded weight-bearing and early pain-free mobilization, and may also treat pre-existing hip arthritis. Removal of the femoral head improves exposure making fracture reduction and fixation easier without the need for more extensile approaches. Open reduction and internal fixation to obtain stability of the anterior and posterior columns is followed by placement of a multi-holed acetabular shell which serves as a supplementary internal fixation device. The femoral head can be used as bulk bone graft to replace and reinforce the reconstruction. These complex procedures are best undertaken by a surgical team with substantial experience with both acetabular trauma and hip arthroplasty.

Despite improvements in outcomes with ORIF, THA is commonly required following failed treatment. Scarring, heterotopic ossification, bone defects, residual deformity, devitalised bone fragments and previous implants can make the procedure challenging. If the patient has undergone previous ORIF it is important to rule out low grade sepsis with appropriate blood tests (ESR + CRP) and further work-up as warranted. Surgical exposure must be carefully planned so as to be able to access all aspects of the acetabulum, including removal of hardware which may interfere with acetabular component placement.

Bone stock loss, malunion and/or non-union must be evaluated with appropriate radiographs or CT scans may be required. Acetabular replacement in the face of deformity from previous trauma encompasses three main problems; bony defects, the presence of bone in places where it is not normally encountered, such as surrounding and incarcerating the femoral head, or substantially anterior or lateral to the center of the acetabulum, and movement of the acetabulum from its normal relationship to the remainder of the pelvis to a new location, such as a higher or more medialised hip center. Intraoperative landmarks may be obscured and therefore placement of reamers and the component may be confusing. THA after acetabular fracture is technically demanding and generally is accompanied by results more typical of revision than primary arthroplasty for degenerative disease.

Intraoperative fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can occur on either the acetabular or the femoral side. A range of risk factors including smaller incision surgery, uncemented components, prior surgery, female sex, osteoporosis, and inflammatory arthritis have been identified. Acetabular fractures are rare but when they do occur often are underrecognised. It is not uncommon for intraoperative acetabular fractures to be discovered only postoperatively. Intraoperative acetabular fractures are associated with cementless implants and a number of identified anatomic risk factors. Factors related to surgical technique, including excessive under-reaming, excessive medialization with aggressive reaming, and implant designs such as an elliptical cup design are associated with higher risk. Treatment of acetabular fractures is dependent on whether they are diagnosed intraoperatively or postoperatively. When discovered intraoperatively, supplemental fixation should be added in the form of additional screw fixation, placing a pelvic plate, or using an acetabular reconstruction cage and morselised allografts. Acetabular reamings, obtained during preparation of the acetabulum, can be used for local bone graft. The goal should be stability of both the fracture and acetabular cup. Postoperatively, weight bearing and mobilization protocols may require modification, with many surgeons choosing a period of toe-touch weight-bearing in such cases. Acetabular fractures found postoperatively require the surgeon to make a judgement on the relative stability of the implant and the fracture to determine if immediate revision surgery or protected weight-bearing alone is appropriate.

On the femoral side intraoperative fractures can occur around the greater trochanter, the calcar, or in the diaphysis. Fractures of the greater trochanter are problematic because of their tendency to displace due to the attachment of the abductors and the strong force they apply. Tension band wiring techniques will work for many greater trochanteric fractures while a trochanteric plate may be occasionally called for. With either form of fixation strong consideration should be given to 6–8 weeks of protected weight bearing postoperatively. Short longitudinal cracks in the medial calcar region are not rare with uncemented implants. Calcar fractures that do not extend below the lesser trochanter can often be managed with a single cerclage cable. Calcar fractures extending below the lesser trochanter should be scrutinised with additional intraoperative xrays; longer longitudinal cracks can be managed with 2 cables while more complex fractures that exit the diaphysis demand a change to a distally fixed implant and formal fracture reduction. Distal diaphyseal fractures are relatively uncommon in the primary setting, but not rare in the revision setting. When recognised intraoperatively, distal diaphyseal fractures can be treated effectively with cerclage cables. Distal diaphyseal longitudinal cracks noted postoperatively do not typically mandate a return to the OR and instead can be managed with 8 weeks of protected weight bearing.

Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent functional compromise. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as poor bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The key tenets for fracture avoidance include careful planning, identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, and using appropriate surgical technique.

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

The management of periprosthetic fractures requires appropriate preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intraoperatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past two decades have afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimization is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort.

We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems, as well as biologically challenging transverse or oblique fractures at the tip of a stem. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required.

The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilization if the patient cannot fully weight bear, and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues.

My goal for every patient undergoing THA is to achieve a perfect result. At the very least this includes no pain at any time, normal range of motion, normal functionality and a minimal chance of a second operation. Both the Posterolateral Approach (PLA) and the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) have the capability of achieving these important goals.

However, when you dive deeper into the goal of a “perfect” THA, some differences between the approaches become apparent. These include less muscle damage, faster recovery, and no restrictions at any time with the DAA as opposed to the PLA. Also there is some evidence of better wound healing (Poehling) and less chance of thromboembolic disease with the DAA (Stryker).

The PLA violates all posterior structures of the hip joint, and specifically also goes through the gluteus maximus muscle. Done properly, the DAA spares all the gluteal muscles, and all of the posterior muscles about the hip. Bergin, who demonstrated lower levels of creatine kinase using the DAA vs PLA, has provided evidence of lower muscle damage.

Faster recovery patterns have been well documented after DAA (Christen, Taunton). Part of this may be related to not needing hip precautions after DAA, while PLA patients are restricted in certain activities and positions in the postoperative period, because of the violation of the posterior capsule. Not having any restrictions enhances patient confidence, and patients tend to do more activities sooner with less reluctance and a subsequent faster recovery.

It is my belief that DAA problems (outside the learning curve) are related to the dependence upon special tables and fluoroscopy, as opposed to proper exposure, to perform a DAA. If you don't test hip stability in the OR, you will miss subtle impingement that can lead to postoperative dislocation. If you depend upon fluoroscopy to guide acetabular reaming (without proper exposure), you run the risk of over-reaming or asymmetric reaming with dire consequences. If you don't measure leg length directly, but rely on fluoroscopic measurements, you run the risk of inadvertent leg lengthening.

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. Every surgeon who performs primary hip arthroplasties will expound the particular virtues of his or her particular routine surgical approach. Usually this approach will be the one to which the surgeon was most widely exposed to during residency training.

There is a strong drive from patients, industry, surgeon marketing campaigns, and the media to perform THA through smaller incisions with quicker recoveries. The perceived advantage of the anterior approach is the lack of disturbance of the soft tissues surrounding the hip joint, less pain, faster recovery with the potential for earlier return to work, shorter hospital stay and improved cosmetic results. The potential disadvantages include less visibility, longer operation time, nerve injuries, femoral fractures, malposition and a long learning curve for the surgeon (and his / her patients).

The anterior approach was first performed in Paris, by Robert Judet in 1947. The advantages of the anterior approach for THA 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.

The mini-incision variation of this exposure was developed by Joel Matta in 1996. He rethought his approach to THA and 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 provide active and passive stability and account for immediate stability of the hip and a low risk of dislocation.

A disadvantage of the approach is the fact that a special operating table with traction is required. Potential complications include intraoperative 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 by lengthening the skin incision downward along the anterolateral aspect of the thigh, and splitting the interval between the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis.

The choice of approach used to perform a primary THA remains controversial. The primary goals are 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 as most of the positive data is based on comparisons with the anterolateral approach.

The proposed benefits of the anterior approach 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 anterior approach in THA.

While total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been shown successful at relieving pain and improving function in patients with coxarthrosis, wear and instability remain leading causes for revision surgery. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXPE) has significantly reduced wear and osteolysis but volumetric wear associated with the use of larger diameter ball heads may be an issue in the long-term. Finally, concerns with femoral taper corrosion have increased the utilization of ceramic ball heads in recent years.

Ceramic on ceramic articulations are optimised for both minimizing implant wear and instability. It is biocompatible, wettable, and possesses the lowest in vitro and in vivo wear rates among all bearing couples. In fact, wear rates are lowest when the ceramic ball head size is maximised. Additionally, modern ceramic on ceramic THA designs have had an excellent clinical track record with low rates of loosening, failure, and no reports of osteolysis in even highly active, young patients.

Concerns with ceramics center around issues related to fracture risk, squeaking, and cost. While the phenomenon of squeaking remains poorly understood, the reliability of ceramic implants have steadily improved with better materials, design, and manufacturing. The fracture risk for modern pure alumina implants and the newer alumina matrix composite ceramics are 1 in 5000 and 1 in 100,000, respectively.

The advantages of ceramic on ceramic THAs will not be realised on every patient and therefore, should be selectively used. However, with expected increases in life expectancy and more young, active patients undergoing THA, ceramic on ceramic THA should be strongly considered in patients under age 60 years.

Intentionally crosslinked polyethylene has improved the survivorship of total hip replacement and is the current standard bearing material for total hip arthroplasty. Regardless of the manufacturing method and counter-surface, the wear rates have been reduced on the order of 90% compared to historical materials, with a substantial reduction in the occurrence of osteolysis. Squeaking is not an issue. The wear of crosslinked polyethylene bearings has not shown the position sensitivity of hard-on-hard bearings. Liner fracture and dissociation have been reported, most commonly in association with malposition, and their occurrence has been decreased by improved modularity. Further, the consequences of a fractured polymeric bearing are substantially less than those of a fractured ceramic bearing. In most markets, there is a cost-differential favoring crosslinked polyethylene. A clinical advantage of ceramic-ceramic must be demonstrated, not theorised, before declaring it to be the new standard.

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%. 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.

Femoral neck fractures continue to be one of the most common orthopaedic injuries treated today. Owing to the increased longevity of patients, enduring activity of older patients, and widespread osteoporosis in the population, there are more femoral neck fractures treated nowadays than ever before. Over 1 million femoral neck fractures were treated in the >65-year-old population, in the United States, between the years 1991–2008.

The treatment of femoral neck fractures is unique because some fractures are amenable to internal fixation, while others require endoprosthetic replacement, either with a hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement. Traditionally, less displaced fractures are treated with internal fixation; however, in younger patients, an attempt to fix the displaced fractures may be performed, in order to avoid a joint replacement in this population. The age at which an attempt at internal fixation is performed is still controversial, and treatment must be individualised to each patient. In general, patients younger than 60 would likely have internal fixation of the femoral neck fracture, rather than joint replacement.

The paradigm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures has been changing in the last 10 years, due to advances in implant technology, surgical technique, and scientific papers that have compared the results of all three treatment options. Larger diameter femoral heads in combination with highly crosslinked polyethylene, or dual mobility head options, provide greater joint stability today than was possible in the past, thus making THA a more appealing option. Furthermore, greater use of the direct anterior approach to THA may also reduce the postoperative dislocation rate, due to preservation of the posterior capsule and short external rotators.

Therefore, the author will propose the use of arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in patients younger than 60 years of age, owing to the reliability and reproducibility of THA over ORIF. Furthermore, the advances in arthroplasty materials and surgical techniques can restore function in this group of younger patients, with greater longevity of the implant than in the past.

There are a number of progressive conditions that afflict the hip and result in degenerative arthritis. Along the path of progression of the disease and prior to the development of arthritis, some of these conditions may be treatable by joint preservation procedures. Periacetabular osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), femoroacetabular osteoplasty for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and a variety of surgical procedures for management of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head are some examples of joint preservation of the hip. DDH is characterised by abnormal development of the acetabulum and the proximal femur that leads to suboptimal contact of the articular surfaces and the resultant increase in joint reaction forces. FAI is a condition characterised by an abnormal contact between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim. FAI is believed to exist when a triad of signs (abnormal alpha angle, labral tear, and chondral lesion) can be identified.

The question that remains is whether joint preservation procedures are able to avert the need for arthroplasty or just an intervention along the natural path of progression of the hip disease. There is an interesting study that followed 628 infants born in a Navajo reservation, including 8 infants with severe dysplasia, for 35 years. None of the children with DDH had surgical treatment and all had developed severe arthritis in the interim. The latter study and a few other natural history studies have shown that the lack of administration of surgical treatment to patients with symptomatic DDH results in accelerated arthritis. The situation is not so clear with FAI. Some believe that FAI is a pre-arthritic condition and surgical treatment is only effective in addressing the symptoms and does not delay or defer an arthroplasty. While others believe that restoration of the normal mechanical environment to the hip of FAI patients, by removing the abnormal contact and repair of the labrum, is likely to change the natural history of the disease and at minimum delay the need for an arthroplasty. There is a need for natural history studies or case series to settle the latter controversy.

Obesity is a leading public health concern and it is increasing in prevalence over the last 20 years. Obesity prevalence has doubled in adults and tripled in adolescents. The United States is the leading country in terms of percent obesity. Most alarming is the fact that the fastest growing rates of obesity are in the highest BMI groups. The issue of obesity is a particular concern to arthroplasty surgeons since there is an association between the increasing incidence of obesity and the increasing rate of joint replacement. Also of concern is that obese patients tend to be younger and complication rates and revision rates are higher in young patients which is only compounded by the presence of obesity. The risk of virtually every major complication is substantially higher in obese patients. Of concern, however, is a recent study indicating that bariatric surgery with successful weight loss does not necessarily decrease the complication rate. Obesity is also associated with substantially higher costs. There is some evidence that obesity doesn't necessarily affect implant survival. There is also evidence that the clinical outcomes may not be substantially compromised by the presence of obesity. Based on data from studies such as this, some centers have stated that it is difficult to justify withholding surgery based on BMI alone. The data on weight loss following surgery indicates the vast majority of patients did not lose weight following joint replacement. In one study a higher proportion of patients gained weight than lost weight.

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

Use of medialised small uncemented acetabular components placed in the anatomic acetabulum, modular uncemented femoral components, and diaphyseal rotational and shortening osteotomies has become a preferred method of treatment. In 2007, we reported our experience with this technique in 23 cases utilizing a subtrochanteric femoral osteotomy with a 5–14 year follow-up. There were 4 Crowe I, 3 Crowe II, 5 Crowe III, and 11 Crowe IV cases. All osteotomies healed. There were no femoral components revised. In most cases, small (mean 46 mm) hemispherical components were used without bulk allografts in all but 5 early cases. One acetabular component was revised for a recalled component. 3 acetabular liners were revised for wear (2 were very small cups with 4.7 mm poly thickness). Four patients sustained dislocations, with 2 closed and 2 open reductions. There were no neurovascular injuries.

The Crowe classification is commonly used to preoperatively classify the degree of dysplasia. However, there are large variations in these anatomic distortions within each class, so it is difficult to preoperatively plan the acetabular component size needed and if one will need to do shortening and/or rotational osteotomy. So the surgeon needs to be prepared for these cases with smaller acetabular components and be prepared to perform a femoral osteotomy.

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

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

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

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

Osteonecrosis (ON) is a debilitating condition that can progress to severe arthritis of the hip. While its exact pathogenesis remains poorly understood, ON is known to be associated with risk factors such as corticosteroid use, alcoholism, and autoimmune disease. Initial radiographic evaluation can reveal sclerotic and cystic changes in the femoral head, which are usually the first clues in diagnosis. Despite these indicators, plain radiographs generally are not sufficient for diagnosis, therefore requiring subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies. Moreover, performing an appropriate assessment of these imaging modalities can help guide the course of treatment. Treatment options are aimed at slowing or stopping the onset of femoral head collapse and include non-operative management, joint preservation procedures, and total joint arthroplasty. Patients at risk of developing ON may benefit from early diagnosis because the characteristic small or medium-sized pre-collapse lesions that are associated with this stage can often be treated with a non-operative or joint preservation approach. However, patients typically present with advanced disease progression and sometimes an unsalvageable joint, thereby necessitating more invasive operative intervention. Surgical modalities include the use of osteotomy, core decompression, vascular grafts, bone graft substitutes, resurfacing, and finally, total hip arthroplasty. Additionally, reports from the past several decades describe improved outcomes and survivorship of these surgical treatment options. Therefore, our purpose is to highlight recent evidence regarding the management of ON with emphasis on the various forms of operative intervention as well as their outcomes.

Patients with longstanding hip fusion are predisposed to symptomatic degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, ipsilateral knee and contralateral hip. In such patients, conversion of hip arthrodesis to hip replacement can provide relief of such symptoms. However, this is a technically demanding procedure associated with higher complication and failure rates than routine total hip replacement.

The aim of this study was to determine the early functional results and complications in patients undergoing hip fusion conversion to total hip replacement, performed or supervised by a single surgeon, using a standardised approach and uncemented implants. We hypothesised that a satisfactory functional improvement can be achieved in following conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement.

Eighteen hip fusions were converted to total hip replacements. A constrained acetabular liner was used in 3 hips. Mean follow up was 5 years (2 to 15 years). Two (11%) hips failed, requiring revision surgery and two patients (11%) had injury to the peroneal nerve. Heterotopic ossification developed in 7 (39%) hips, in one case resulting in joint ankylosis. No hips dislocated.

Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function.

This session will present a series of challenging and complex primary and revision cases to a panel of internationally respected hip arthroplasty experts. The primary cases will include challenges such as hip dysplasia, altered bony anatomy and fixation challenges. In the revision hip arthroplasty scenarios issues such as bone stock loss, leg length discrepancy, instability and infection 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.

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

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

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

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

Acetabular component malalignment remains the single greatest root cause for revision THA with malposition of at least half of all acetabular components placed using conventional methods. These studies repeatedly document that the concept of using local anatomical landmarks has no scientific basis over a breadth of presenting pathology. Traditional navigation and robotics can potentially lead to improved component placement but these technologies have not gained widespread use 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. The alternative of placing the cup in the supine position, even with the use of arthroscopy, has been proven to have an incidence of inaccuracy equal or greater than that in the lateral position.

A smart mechanical instrument system was developed to quickly and easily achieve accurate cup alignment (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Boston, MA). The system is based on a low dose, low cost CT study and a customised patient-specific surgery plan. The laterally-based system docks on a patient-specific basis with 3 legs: one through the incision behind the posterior rim, one percutaneously on the lateral side of the ASIS, and a third percutaneously on the surface of the ilium. A direction indicator on the top of the instrument points in the desired cup orientation. The anteriorly-based system also docks on a patient-specific basis with one leg on the anterior ischium and one leg on each ASIS, either to skin or to bone.

The lateral system has been proven to be robust, with repeated studies showing accurate cup placement in 100% of cases and an independent study showing accurate cup placement in 98% of cases for both anteversion and inclination. This compares to a recent study of robotic methods that 88% of inclination and 84% for anteversion.

Smart mechanical navigation of cup placement offers the optimum combination of accuracy, speed, and simplicity for solving the ubiquitous problem of acetabular component malorientation.

Nerve palsy occurring after elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication because of its effect on motor strength, walking ability, potential for pain, and unexpected nature. In general, the nerve distribution involved is the peroneal branch of the sciatic nerve, and the level of involvement is usually mixed motor and sensory.

Prior publications have associated limb lengthening, dysplasia and use of the posterior approach to be associated with a higher incidence of nerve palsy. In the literature, the incidence of sciatic nerve palsy is estimated to be 0.2 to 1.9%.

We examined the rate of sciatic nerve palsy after THA performed by the joint replacement service at Hospital for Special Surgery between the years 1998–2013. Each case was matched with 2 controls that underwent THA and did not develop postoperative neuropathy. Controls were matched by surgical date having been within 7 days of their matched case's surgery date. Patient and surgical variables were reviewed using data from patient charts and the institution's total joint replacement registry. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to identify potential risk factors for neuropathy following THA while adjusting for potential confounders.

We found that, of 39,056 primary THA cases, there were 81 cases of sciatic nerve palsy, giving an incidence of 0.21%. The factors with the greatest odds ratios for nerve palsy were: history of smoking (OR=3.45); history of spinal stenosis (OR=4.45), and time of day of 1PM or later (OR=3.98). We did not find limb lengthening, dysplasia, or type of fixation to be associated with nerve palsy.

In conclusion, post-surgical neuropathy has a low incidence after primary THA, but at our institution, was associated with several factors. Spine-related comorbidities, such as spinal stenosis and lumbar spine disease, and smoking history should be closely monitored to inform the patient and surgeon for the potential increased risk of postoperative neuropathy following THA.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), remain one of the most common complications following total joint arthroplasty. Reported rates of symptomatic VTE following THA and TKA range from 0.83% to 15% and 2% to 10%, respectively. Thus, VTE prophylaxis should be routinely administered following total joint arthroplasty. However, while orthopaedic surgeons have considerable flexibility regarding their VTE prophylaxis regimen, it remains unclear which is optimal.

Patients at low risk of VTE may receive excessive anticoagulation and unnecessarily risk further perioperative morbidity (wound complications, bleeding) following total joint arthroplasty. With an evolving health care landscape, emphasis on complications and readmissions, and shorter inpatient hospitalizations, it is imperative that a VTE prophylaxis regimen is simple, effective, easy to monitor, and has high patient compliance. Mobile pneumatic compression devices (MCDs) have been used with greater frequency following total joint arthroplasty, with multiple reports demonstrating their effectiveness in VTE prevention with or without the addition of aspirin for chemical prophylaxis. The use of MCDs allows the avoidance of more aggressive anticoagulation in the majority of patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty, decreases the incidence of wound complications, and achieves a low overall incidence of symptomatic VTE. Future investigations are necessary to determine the necessity and impact of the addition of aspirin to the use of MCDs for VTE prophylaxis.

The contemporary metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings were reintroduced due to their lower volumetric wear rates in comparison to conventional metal-on-polyethylene bearings. This has the potential to substantially reduce wear-induced osteolysis as the major cause of failure and greater implant stability with the use of large femoral heads. It has been estimated that since 1996 more than 1,000,000 MoM articular couples have been implanted worldwide. However, with increasing clinical experience, the national joint registries have recently reported the failure rate of THA with MoM bearings to be 2–3 fold higher than contemporary THA with non-metal-on-metal bearings. Moreover, adverse periprosthetic tissue reactions have emerged as an important reason for failure in MoM patients.

A painful MoM hip arthroplasty has various intrinsic and extrinsic causes. As in all painful THA, a thorough clinical history, a detailed physical examination, as well as radiographic and laboratory tests are essential to delineate potential cause(s) of pain in patients with MoM hip arthroplasty. While specialised tests such as metal ion analysis are useful modalities for assessing MoM hip arthroplasty, over-reliance on any single investigative tool in the clinical decision-making process should be avoided. There should be a low threshold to perform a systematic evaluation of patients with MoM hip arthroplasty as early recognition and diagnosis will facilitate the initiation of appropriate treatment prior to significant adverse biological reactions. A systematic risk stratification recommendation, for multiple modes of failure including adverse local tissue reactions, based on the currently available evidence will be presented to optimise management.

Dislocation and accelerated wear have been the nemesis of hip surgeons. No study has been able to correlate cup position to instability. In recent years the influence of the spine-pelvis-hip construct has emerged as important to understand the shift in component position with postural change.

Using measurements familiar to spine surgeons, we have correlated the pelvic incidence (PI), a static measurement of pelvic width and hip position; the static tilt, a dynamic measure of pelvic-spine mobility. For THR we have measured the sagittal cup position as the fixed angular change of the cup shifts with pelvic tilt, and this is named anteinclination; and the sacral acetabular angle (SAA) which is the relationship of the acetabulum to the absolute value of sacral tilt (ST) in both standing and sitting. The pelvic femoral angle (PFA) is a measure of femur/hip flexion/internal rotation correlated to pelvic mobility.

Dislocation is most common in patients with low PI combined with an ST change <15 degrees. With normal PI and high PI, it occurs much less commonly and only in patients with ST change <5 degrees (very stiff). In patients with stiff pelvis (ST<13) the cup needs increased inclination and anteversion (45/20–25) to compensate for absence of cup opening by posterior tilt of pelvis. For patients with low PI and stiff pelvis we recommend constraint (such as dual mobility articulation).

Recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a complex, multifactorial problem that has been shown to be the most common indication for revision THA. At our center, we have tried to approach the unstable hip by identifying the primary cause of instability and correcting that at the time of revision surgery.

Type 1: Malposition of the acetabular component treated with revision of the acetabular component and upsizing the femoral head.

Type 2: Malposition of the femoral component treated with revision of the femur and upsizing the femoral head.

Type 3: Abductor deficiency treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility bearing.

Type 4: Soft tissue or bony impingement treated with removal of impingement sources and upsizing the femoral head.

Type 5: Late wear of the bearing treated with bearing surface exchange and upsizing the femoral head.

Type 6: Unclear etiology treated with a constrained liner or dual mobility articulation.

The most common etiologies of instability in our experience include cup malposition (Type 1) and abductor deficiency (Type 3).

We reviewed 75 hips revised for instability and at a mean 35.3 months 11 re-dislocations occurred (14.6%). Acetabular revisions were protective against re-dislocation (p<0.015). The number of previous operations (p=0.0379) and previously failed constrained liners (p<0.02) were risk factors for failure. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with revisions for other etiologies having a success rate of 90%.

Although instability can be multifactorial, by identifying the primary cause of instability, a rational approach to treatment can be formulated. In general the poorest results were seen in patients with abductor deficiency. Given the high rate of failure of constrained liners (9 of the 11 failures were constrained), we currently are exploring alternatives such as dual mobility articulations.

In the revision situation in general and for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function. 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 (Wera et al). 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, tripolar constrained liners provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations, tripolar with constraint remains the option we utilise in many cases. 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 tripolar constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below.

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

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 Tripolar Liner - For Dislocation: 56 Hips; 10 year average f/u; 7% failure of device, 5% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening

Constrained Tripolar Liner - For Difficult Revisions: 101 hips; 10 year average f/u; 6% failure of device, 4% femoral loosening, 4% acetabular loosening

Cementing Liner into Shell: 31 hips; 3.6 year average f/u (2–10 years); 2 of 31 failures

We, like others, are trying to define cases where dual mobility will be as successful or more successful than tripolar constrained liners.

The number one reason to consider large heads in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is for increased stability. Large diameter femoral heads substantially increase stability by virtue of increased range of motion and increased jump distance, which is the amount of displacement required to sublux the head out of the socket. Prevention is the best means for reducing dislocation, with requisites for stability being appropriate component position, restoration of leg length, and restoration of offset.

In a review from our center studying the frequency of dislocation with small diameter femoral heads (≤32 mm) in 1262 patients (1518 hips) who underwent primary THA performed via a direct lateral approach, we observed a dislocation rate of 0.8% (12 of 1518). In a subsequent study of 1748 patients (2020 hips) who underwent primary THA at our center with large diameter heads (mean 43 mm, range 36–60 mm), we observed a substantially lower 0.04% frequency of dislocation (one of 2010) at a mean followup of 2.6 years.

Our findings have been echoed in studies from several other centers. Howie et al. reported a prospective controlled trial of 644 low risk patients undergoing primary or revision THA randomised to receive either a 36 mm or 28 mm metal head articulated on highly crosslinked polyethylene. They observed significantly lower frequency of frequency of dislocation with 36 mm heads both overall (1.3%, 4 of 299 versus 5.4%, 17 of 216 with 28 mm heads, p=0.012) and in primary use (0.8%, 2 of 258 versus 4.4%, 12 of 275 with 28 mm heads, p=0.024), and a similar trend in their smaller groups of revision patients (5%, 2 of 41 versus 12%, 5 of 41 with 28 mm heads, p=0.273).

Lachiewicz and Soileau reported on early and late dislocation with 36- and 40 mm heads in 112 patients (122 hips) at presumed high risk for dislocation who underwent primary THA. Risk factors were age >75 for 80 hips, proximal femur fracture for 18, history of contralateral dislocation for 2, history of alcohol abuse in 2, large acetabulum (>60 mm) in 6, and other reasons in 14. Early dislocation (<1 year) occurred in 4% (5 of 122), all with 36 mm heads. Late dislocation (>5 years) did not occur in any of the 74 patients with follow up beyond 5 years.

Stroh et al. compared 225 patients (248 hips) treated with THA using small diameter heads (<36 mm) to 501 patients (559 hips) treated with THA using large diameter heads (≥36 mm). There were no dislocations with large diameter heads compared with 1.8% (10 of 559) with small diameter heads.

Allen et al. studied whether or not large femoral heads improve functional outcome after primary THA via the posterior approach in 726 patients. There were 399 done with small heads (<36 mm), 254 with medium heads (36 mm), and 73 with large heads (>36 mm), analyzed preoperatively, at 6 months, and at 12 months. The authors could not find a correlation between increasing head size and improved function at one year, but observed that dislocation was reduced with large diameter heads.

Optimization of hip biomechanics via proper surgical technique, component position, and restoration of leg length and offset are mandatory in total hip arthroplasty. Large heads enhance stability by increasing range of motion prior to impingement and enhancing jump stability.

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 head is snap-fit into the large polyethylene. The first such device was introduced for primary total hip arthroplasty by Bousquet in the 1970s, thus, the “French connection”. Dual mobility components have been released for use in North America over the past five years. In some European centers, these components are routinely used for primary total hip arthroplasty. However, their greatest utility may be to manage recurrent dislocation in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. Several retrospective series and the Swedish hip registry have shown satisfactory results for this indication at short- to medium-term follow-up times. However, there are important concerns with polyethylene wear, late intraprosthetic dislocation, and the lack of long-term follow-up data. These components are an important option in the treatment of recurrent dislocation in younger patients, revision of failed metal-metal resurfacing, and salvage of failed constrained liners. There are more recent concerns of possible iliopsoas tendinitis, elevated metal levels with one design, and acute early intraprosthetic dislocation following attempted closed reduction. However, a dual mobility component may now be the preferred solution in revision surgery for recurrent hip dislocation.

Abductor deficiency commonly contributes to total hip dislocation. Successful treatment of the deficiency can improve function, decrease pain, and decrease reliance on implants to cure recurrent dislocation. The defining physical exam findings are dependence on ambulatory assistive devices, severe limp, positive Trendelenberg sign, and inability to abduct against gravity.

Three techniques have been described for chronic abductor discontinuity in which the abductors have retracted or are absent and cannot reach the greater trochanter: Vastus lateralis muscle shift, Achilles tendon allograft, and gluteus maximus muscle transfer. None of the techniques were specifically performed for dislocation.

The vastus lateralis shift transfers the entire muscle proximally maintaining the neurovascular bundle. The procedure requires an incision from the hip to the knee, isolation of the neurovascular bundle, and elevation of the muscle from the femur. The authors admitted that the technique is demanding and not easily applicable to many surgeons.

Repair with an Achilles allograft requires an identifiable contractile abductor mass. The allograft is looped through the abductors to bridge the gap to the trochanter.

Two variations of a gluteus muscle transfer for abductor deficiency after total hip have been described. A portion of the gluteus maximus with its distal fascial portion are transferred to the greater trochanter. As far as dislocation is concerned an advantage of this technique is the use of the posterior maximus flap to fill a posterior and superior capsular defect not addressed with the other techniques. In addition the technique is easy to perform in almost all cases.

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.

Since the advent of total hip arthroplasty (THA), there have been many changes in implant design that have been implemented in an effort to improve the outcome of the procedure and enhance the surgeon's ability to reproducibly perform the procedure. Some of these design features have not stood the test of time. However, the introduction of femoral stem head/neck modularity made possible by the Morse taper has now been a mainstay design feature for over two decades. Modularity at the head-neck junction facilitates intraoperative adjustments. ‘Dual Taper’ modular stems in total hip arthroplasty have interchangeable modular necks with additional modularity at the neck and stem junction. This ‘dual taper’ modular femoral stem design facilitates adjustments of the leg length, the femoral neck version and the offset independent of femoral fixation. This has the potential advantage of optimizing hip biomechanical parameters by accurately reproducing the center of rotation of the hip.

More recently, however, there is increasing concern regarding the occurrence of adverse local tissue reactions in patients with taper corrosion, which is emerging as an important reason for failure requiring revision surgery. Although adverse tissue reactions or ‘pseudotumor’ were initially described as a complication of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, the presence of pseudotumor in patients with taper corrosion is thought to result from corrosion at the neck-stem taper junction, secondary to reciprocating movement at the modular junction leading to fretting corrosion in a process described as mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC). Therefore, the focus of this presentation is to summarise clinical challenges in diagnosis and treatment of patients with adverse tissue reactions due to taper corrosion and review up-to-date evidence.

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. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty can be challenging from both a technical perspective and in preoperative planning. With multiple reconstructive options available, it is helpful to have a classification system which guides the surgeon in selecting the appropriate method of reconstruction. We have developed a classification of femoral deficiency and an algorithmic approach to femoral reconstruction is presented.

Type I: Minimal loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often seen when conversion of a cementless femoral component without biological ingrowth surface requires revision.

Type II: Extensive loss of metaphyseal cancellous bone with an intact diaphysis. Often encountered after the removal of a cemented femoral component.

Type IIIA: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with more than four centimeters of intact diaphyseal bone for distal fixation. This type of defect is commonly seen after removal of grossly loose femoral components inserted with first generation cementing techniques.

Type IIIB: The metaphysis is severely damaged and non-supportive with less than four centimeters of diaphyseal bone available for distal fixation. This type of defect is often seen following failure of a cemented femoral component that was inserted with a cement restrictor and cementless femoral components associated with significant distal osteolysis.

Type IV: Extensive meta-diaphyseal damage in conjunction with a widened femoral canal. The isthmus is non-supportive.

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. 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-Klinik 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.

Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Incorporation of these grafts has been described in 89%.

Technical steps include: removal of failed stem and all cement, reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (if necessary), preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill, optimal bone chip diameter 2 – 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6 – 8 mm), insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal to the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressively larger impactors proximal, insertion of a stem “dummy” as proximal impactor and space filler, removal of central wire, retrograde insertion of low viscosity cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurization, insertion of standard cemented stem. 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. Postoperative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches.

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

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 become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients.

We maintain a database on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral rerevision 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 prerevision 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 rerevision 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 mm 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.

There is no mathematical relationship between the internal diameter of the femoral metaphysis and diaphysis. Unless an infinite number of monolithic stems are available with variable metaphyseal and diaphyseal diameters, which is not economically possible, even in virgin cases, the surgeon has to decide if the stem is going to fit in the metaphysis or the diaphysis. It is not possible to match both.

In revision cases with a hollowed out metaphysis, the situation is much worse. As it is obviously easier to fit the diaphysis, this is what stems such as the AML and Wagner stem have done. They completely ignore the metaphysis and obtain fixation in the diaphysis. This is all well and good, but it means that the proximal femur is unloaded, like an astronaut in space. While, there will be some recovery due to removal of the toxins and local muscle pull, it will be incomplete. Furthermore, should sepsis occur, one is faced with the horror of removing a distally fixed implant.

Clearly, if proximal fixation, i.e. above the level of lesser trochanter could reliably be achieved, this would be preferable in terms of proximal loading leading to bone recovery and ease of removal should it be required. The only way that proximal loading can be achieved is if the metaphyseal and diaphyseal parts of the component can be varied infinitely. This clearly can only be achieved by using a modular stem.

The concern with modularity always has been fretting at the sleeve-stem locking mechanism with release of metal ions. The stem, which I have been using for the last 25 years, is the SROM stem. Fretting and ion release had never been an issue. As the components are made of a relatively soft titanium alloy, it is likely that the sleeve and the stem cold weld, thus, eliminating any movement and eliminating friction.

I have a follow-up of roughly 120 revision cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years and a maximum follow-up of 22 years. I have no loosening in easy revision cases where a primary stem was used. I have had some loosenings in extremely difficult revision situations where a long bowed stem was required, but even then, the loosening rate is less than 3%.

I use this stem in primary situations, i.e. in about 80% of all the primaries I have done. This means I have done roughly 1500 cases or more. Other than some late infections, I have never, ever had any stem loosening in a simple case. Obviously, I have had loosenings in some cases, where we have been doing fancy shortening or de-rotation osteotomies, but none in simple primary cases. I would, therefore, suggest that the surgeon, if he wishes to use this stem, please try it out on some simple primary cases.

The ability to vary distal and proximal internal diameters and proximal geometry makes for easy surgery. I have been using this stem for 25 years and continue to use it in all my primary noncemented cases. I believe in the adage of “train hard and fight easy.” I think that surgeons should not get themselves into a situation where they are forced in a difficult case to use something they have never seen before.

Revision hip surgery is about simplification. As such, a single revision stem makes sense. The most important advantage of Tapered Conical Revision (TCR) stem is versatility - managing ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). The surgeon and team quickly gain familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently master its use for a variety of situations. This ability to use the stem in a variety of bone loss situations eliminates intraoperative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly underestimated preoperatively or may change intraoperatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably.

Paprosky 1 femoral defects can be treated with a primary-type stem for the most part. All other femoral defects can be treated with a TCR stem. Fully porous coated stems also work for many revisions but why have two different revision stem choices available when the TCR stems work for ALL defects?

TCR stems can be modular or monolithic but there are common keys to success. First and foremost, proper exposure is essential to assess bone defects and to safely prepare the femur. An extended osteotomy is often useful. Reaming distally to prepare a cone for fixation of the conical stem is a critical requirement to prevent subsidence (true for all revision stems). Restoration of hip mechanics (offset, leg length and stability) is fundamental to the clinical result. TCR stems have instrumentation and techniques that ensure this happens, since all this occurs AFTER distal stability is achieved.

Modular TCR versions have some advantages. The proximal body size and length can be adjusted AFTER stem insertion if the stem goes deeper than the trial. Any proximal/distal bone size mismatch can be accommodated. If the surgeon believes that proximal bone ingrowth is important to facilitate proximal bone remodeling, modular TCR stems can more easily accomplish this. Further, proximal bone contact and osseointegration will protect the modular junction from stress and possible risk of fracture.

Monolithic TCR versions also have some advantages. Modular junction mechanical integrity cannot accommodate smaller bone sizes. Shorter stem lengths are not available in modular versions, and shorter TCR stems are an option in many revision cases. The possibility of modular junction corrosion is eliminated and fracture of the stem at that junction, of course, is not possible. The monolithic stem option is less expensive as well.

Consider Modular TCR stems in your learning curve, if you feel proximal bone osseointegration is important and if proximal/distal size mismatch is present. Consider Monolithic TCR stems after your learning curve to reduce cost, when a short stem works, and if a small stem is needed.

Both Modular and Monolithic stems can be used for ALL cases with equal quality of result.

Periacetabular osteolysis is seen in response to particles (polyethylene, ceramic, metal or cement), at times in the presence of an unstable implant, and perhaps made worse by the unique host response to the particle burden. The impact of wear modes: due to either the primary bearing surface (MOP, MOM, COC) or unintended surfaces as seen in impingement, as well as the quality of the bearing counterface all influence the extent of the osteolytic response. The final common pathway appears to be via macrophage stimulation, an upregulation of cytokines leading to a resorption of bone.

The patterns of lysis range from linear resorption at the implant interface to more expansile patterns which can be more dramatic in size and may place the implant at jeopardy for loosening. Assessment of implant fixation as well as extent of the lytic process employs the use of plain radiographs (including oblique views), computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The utility of MRI for the quantification of bone loss as well as the newer phenomena of associated soft tissue lesions (pseudotumors, adverse tissue reactions) has turned out to be a valuable tool in helping determine timing and need for revision.

The basic principles in determining need for revision surgery revolve around: degree of lysis, integrity of the soft tissues, fixation of the implant, track record of the implant, as well as patient factors including symptoms, age and activity.

In cemented sockets, progressive bone loss, pain with or without overt loosening is indication for revision which is generally accomplished using an uncemented hemispherical acetabular component with bone graft and screw augmentation.

In the uncemented socket, the decision to revise is based upon a) implant stability, 2) the integrity of the locking mechanism, 3) degree of bone loss. With stable implants, polyethylene exchange and “lesional” treatment is appropriate. Well fixed implants with extensive lysis can be successfully managed with liner exchange and bone grafting as necessary. If the liner locking mechanism is compromised, cementing a liner into place is an excellent strategy. Removing a well fixed cup with extensive lysis runs the risk of encountering a large acetabular defect which may be difficult to reconstruct. Loose implants clearly require revision.

In the era of “hard bearings”, progressive soft tissue expansion leading to damage of the abductor and other soft tissue constraints about the hip is an indication for revision. Revision of MOM THR's may be performed by maintaining the femoral component and performing an isolated acetabular revision or in some instances of modular acetabular components, maintaining the shell and inserting a new liner. In all instances of implant retention, it is critical to confirm that the components are in optimised position: implants retained in suboptimal position are at risk for early failure.

Total hip arthroplasty continues to be one of the most effective procedures. Aseptic loosening compromises the long term outcome of this otherwise successful procedure. Large hemispherical cups may be used during revision surgery for patients with severe bone loss. Acetabular revision with cementless components has been remarkably successful with some series reporting no revisions for aseptic loosening at an average follow-up of 13.9 years. Another study on 186 patients (196 hips) receiving jumbo acetabular components, noted a survivorship of 98% at 4 years and 96% at 16 years. Cementless acetabular revision is now feasible for a wide range of revision situations, including some cases of pelvic discontinuity. The Paprosky classification is useful in predicting the reconstructive technique that will be required. Type I and many Type II defects may be reconstructed with standard cementless components. Many Type II and Type III defects, which involve the loss of additional structural bone, can be reconstructed with a jumbo cup. A jumbo cup is defined by Whaley et al. as a component that is >61 mm in women and >65 mm in men, a definition that is based on a shell that is >10 mm greater than the average diameter cup implanted in women and men. The jumbo cup has the advantage of an increased contact area between host bone and cup which maximises the surface area for ingrowth or ongrowth. The increased area of contact also prevents cup migration by allowing for force dissipation over a large area. Use of a jumbo cup may also decrease the need to use bone graft. In contrast to positioning the cup in the so-called high hip center, a jumbo cup can help to restore the hip center of rotation.

The disadvantages of this technique are that host bone may have to be removed to implant the cup, that bone stock is not restored by the reconstruction, and that hemispherical cups have limited applicability in situations of oblong bone stock deficiency.

Jumbo acetabular components can be used in combination with both structural and cancellous bone graft. In these cases, the cementless cup must achieve adequate contact with host bone in order to allow bone ingrowth to occur.

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 it is 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 use 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 4 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.

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 highly porous ingrowth acetabular components can be used for the reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, especially where small to mid-sized segmental or cavitary defects are present which do not compromise stable mechanical support by the host bone for the cup after bone preparation is complete. A mechanically stable and near motionless interface between the host bone and the implant is required over the initial weeks post-surgery for bone ingrowth to occur, regardless of the type of porous surface employed. As bone deficiency increases, the challenge of achieving rigid cup fixation also increases, especially if the quality of the remaining host bone is compromised. A stepwise approach to enhanced fixation of the highly porous revision acetabular component is possible as follows:

Maximise Screw Fixation. Use of a limited number of screws in the dome only (as routinely occurs with a cluster hole design) is inadequate, except for primary arthroplasty cases or very routine revision cases with little or no bone loss and good bone quality. Otherwise an array of screws across the acetabular dome and continuing around the posterior column to base of the ischium is strongly recommended. This can help prevent early rocking of the cup into a more vertical position due to pivoting on dome screws used alone, via cup separation inferiorly in zone 3. A minimum of 3 or 4 screws in a wide array are suggested and use of 6 or more screws is not uncommon if bone quality is poor or defects are large.

Cement the Acetabular Liner into the Shell. This creates a locking screw effect, which fixes the screw heads in position and prevents any screws from pivoting or backing out.

Acetabular Augments (vs Structural Allograft). When critical segmental defects are present which by their location or size preclude stable support of the cup used alone, either a structural allograft or highly porous metal augment can provide critical focal support and enhance fixation. Highly porous metal augments were initially developed as a prosthetic allograft substitute in order to avoid the occasional graft resorption and loss of fixation sometimes seen with acetabular allograft use.

Cup-Cage Construct. If one or more of the above strategies are used and fixation is deemed inadequate, it is possible to add a ½ or full acetabular cage “over the top” of the acetabular component before cementing a polyethylene liner in place. The full cup cage construct can be used for maximal fixation in cases of pelvic dissociation, alone or in combination with the distraction method as described by Paprosky. Use of a ½ cage is technically simpler and requires less exposure than a full cage, but still greatly enhances rigidity of fixation when transverse screws into the ilium are combined with standard screws in the cup including vertically into the dome.

These techniques used in combination with highly porous tantalum implants have allowed durable fixation for the full range of reconstructive challenges and bone defects encountered. Newer 3-D printed titanium highly porous materials have recently been introduced by multiple manufacturers as a potential alternative that may be more cost effective, but these implants and materials will require clinical validation over the years ahead.

The custom triflange acetabular component has been advocated for severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity, cases in which a porous-coated hemisphere will not work. These are AAOS type III or IV defects, or alternatively classified as Paprosky 3B. Many have a pelvic discontinuity. A preoperative CT of the pelvis is sent to the manufacturer who generates a one to one scale 3D model of the hemipelvis. If the visualised defect cannot be treated with traditional methods then a triflanged component is created. Initial rigid fixation is obtained with screw fixation to the ilium and ischium. Subsequent bone ingrowth can provide long term fixation. The goal is to span the acetabular defect and obtain fixation to ilium and ischium with a third flange which rests on the pubis. Christie first reported on 67 hips (half with a discontinuity) with a mean follow-up of 53 months. No components were removed. There was an 8% reoperation for dislocation, 6% partial sciatic nerve palsy. Dennis reported 26 hips with a mean 54 month follow-up. Eighty-eight percent were considered successful. Taunton reported 57 cases with a pelvic discontinuity treated with a triflange at mean follow-up of 65 months. Eighty-one percent had a stable component and a healed pelvic discontinuity. The primary disadvantage of the technique is the preoperative time required to manufacture the device – typically 4–8 weeks.

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:

(A)

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 following papers will be discussed during this session: 1) Staph Screening and Treatment Prior to Elective TJA; 2) Unfulfilled Expectations Following TJA Procedures; 3) Thigh Pain in Short Stem Cementless Components in THR; 4) Is the Direct Anterior Approach a Risk Factor for Early Failure?; 5) THA Infection - Results of a 2nd 2-Stage Re-implantation - Clinical Trial of Articulating and Static Spacers; 6) THA Revision - Modular vs. Non Modular Fluted Tapered Stems-Total Femoral Replacement for Femoral Bone Loss - Cage + TM Augment vs. Cup Cage for Acetabular Bone Loss; 7) Do Injections Increase the Risk of Infection Prior to TKA?; 8) Long-Acting Opioid Use Predicts Perioperative Complication in TJA; 9) UKA vs. HTO in Patients Under 55 at 5–7 years; 10) Stemming Tibial Component in TKA Patients with a BMI > 30; 11) The Effect of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty; 12) Oral Antibiotics and Reinfection Following Two-Stage Exchange; 13) Two-Stage Debridement with Prosthetic Retention for Acute TKA Infections; 14) Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict Meaningful Improvement after TKA; 15) Contemporary Rotating Hinge TKA; 16) Liposomal Bupivacaine in TKA; and 17) Noise Generation in Modern TKA: Incidence and Significance.

Uncontained acetabular defects with loss of superior iliac and posterior column support (Paprosky 3B) represent a reconstructive challenge as the deficient bone will preclude the use of a conventional hemispherical cup. Such defects can be addressed with large metallic constructs like cages with and without allograft, custom tri-flange cups, and more recently with trabecular metal augments. An underutilised alternative is impaction bone grafting, after creating a contained cavitary defect with a reinforcement mesh. This reconstructive option delivers a large volume of bone while using a small-size socket fixed with acrylic cement.

Between 2006 and 2014, sixteen patients with a Paprosky 3B acetabular defect were treated with cancellous, fresh frozen impaction grafting supported by a peripheral reinforcement mesh secured to the pelvis with screws. A cemented all polyethylene cup was used. Preoperative diagnosis was aseptic loosening (10 cemented and 6 non-cemented). The femoral component was revised in 9 patients. Postoperative course consisted of 3 months of protected weight bearing. Patients were followed clinically and radiographically.

One patient had an incomplete postoperative sciatic palsy. After a mean follow up of 40 months (24 to 104) none of the patients required re-revision. One asymptomatic patient presented with aseptic loosening 9 years postoperatively. Hardware failure was not observed. All patients had radiographic signs of graft incorporation and bone remodeling. There were no dislocations.

The early and mid-term results of revisions for large acetabular defects with this technique are encouraging. Reconstitution of hip center of rotation and bone stock with the use of a small-size implant make this technique an attractive option for these large defects. Longer follow-up is needed to assess survivability.

Impaction grafting is an excellent option for acetabular revision. It is technique specific and very popular in England and the Netherlands and to some degree in other European centers. The long term published results are excellent. It is, however, technique dependent and the best results are for contained cavitary defects. If the defect is segmental and can be contained by a single mesh and impaction grafting, the results are still quite good. If, however, there is a larger segmental defect of greater than 50% of the acetabulum or a pelvic discontinuity, other options should be considered.

Segmental defects of 25–50% can be managed by minor column (shelf) or figure of 7 structural allografts with good long term results. Porous metal augments are now a good option with promising early to mid-term results. Segmental defects of greater than 50% require a structural graft or porous augment usually protected by a cage. If there is an associated pelvic discontinuity then a cup cage is a better solution.

An important question is does impaction grafting facilitate rerevision surgery? There is no evidence to support this but some histological studies of impacted allograft would suggest that it may. On the other hand there are papers that show that structural allografts do restore bone stock for further revision surgery. Also the results of impaction grafting are best in the hands of surgeons comfortable with using cement on the acetabular side, and one of the reasons why this technique is not as popular in North America.

Refinement of surgical techniques, anesthesia protocols, and patient selection has facilitated this transformation to same day discharge for arthroplasty care, most notably Partial Knee Arthroplasty (PKA). 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 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 an outpatient.

The program centers on the patient, their family, home recovery, preoperative education, efficient surgery, and represents a shift in the paradigm of arthroplasty care. It can be highly beneficial to patients, surgeons, anesthesia, 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. Preemptive 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.

Significant advances in perioperative pain management, such as multimodal periarticular injection, and subtler advances in surgical technique have resulted in improved postoperative experiences for patients with less pain, earlier rehabilitation, and shorter stays in hospital. Concurrently, and by applying the learnings from above, significant advances have been made in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty care pathways leading to safe programs for outpatient surgery. A natural extension of this process has been the exploration of outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

There are some papers written on the topic, but not many. The papers are generally report that outpatient TJA can be a safe and effective procedure, but the devil is in the detail. Firstly, most authors in this field carry a bias towards positive outcomes given they fact they are expert, academic, and innovative surgeons, often having controlling interest in the management of the complete perioperative pathway. Secondly, and largely as a result of the above, there is a major selection bias as to who receives outpatient TJA. In all cases, the patients are younger, fitter, and with less comorbidities. Patients reported in the published literature on outpatient TJA therefore do not represent the average patient that the average surgeon would operate on. Recall, TJA patients are becoming heavier and older patients (85+) are also receiving TJA at increasing rates.

It is useful to remember that TJA is a stressful event from a physiological perspective for the patient. Serious complications, including death, can and do occur. Further, some significant events, like cardiac ischemia occur around the second to third day postoperatively. These patients often require medical intervention for stabilization and need readmission when sent home before these events occur. This obviously is not a trivial issue given the penalties applied to hospitals in the US for early readmissions after TJA.

The fundamental questions at this early stage of outpatient TJA are 1) whether it is scalable to a larger audience, and 2) whether or not processes can be developed to make it a routine, standard of care. Given that the current literature is limited and written by expert surgeons on a highly select group of patients, and given that patients in general are getting older and less healthy, it is difficult to imagine a future of TJA as drive through surgery.

Periprosthetic fractures involving the femoral meta/diaphysis can be treated in various fashions. The overall incidence of those fractures after primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA) ranges from 0.3 to 2.5%, however, can increase above 30% in revision TKA, especially in older patients with poorer bone quality. Various classifications suggest treatment algorithms. However, they are not followed consequently. Revision arthroplasty becomes always necessary if the implant becomes loose. Next, it should be considered in case of an unhappy TKA prior to the fracture rather than going for an osteosynthesis. Coverage of the associated segmental bone loss in combination with proximal fixation, can be achieved in either cemented or non-cemented techniques, with or without the combination of osteosynthetic fracture stabilization. Severe destruction of the metaphyseal bone, often does not allow adequate implant fixation for the revision implant and often does not allow proper anatomic alignment. In addition the destruction might include loss of integrity of the collaterals. Consequently standard or even revision implants might not be appropriate. Although first reports about partial distal femoral replacement are available since the 1960´s, larger case series or technical reports are rare within the literature and limited to some specialised centers. Most series are reported by oncologic centers, with necessary larger osseous resections of the distal femur.

The implantation of any mega prosthesis system requires meticulous planning, especially to calculate the appropriate leg length of the implant and resulting leg length. After implant and maybe cement removal, non-structural bone might be resected. Trial insertion is important due to the variation of overall muscle tension and recreation of the former joint line. So far very few companies offer yet such a complete, modular system which might also be expanded to a total femur solution. Furthermore it should allow the implantation of either a cemented or uncemented diaphyseal fixation. In general, the fracture should be well bridged with a longer stem in place. At least 3 cm to 5 cm of intact diaphysis away to the fracture site is required for stable fixation for both cemented and cementless stems. Application of allograft struts and cables maximises the biomechanical integrity of the fracture zone to promote fracture repair and implant fixation. Modular bridging systems do allow centimeter wise adaption distally, to the knee joint. Consequently in modern systems fully hinged or rotational hinge knee systems can be coupled, and adjusted accordingly to the patellar tracking and joint line. Fixation of the tibial component can be achieved in uncemented and cemented techniques. We still prefer the latter.

Although a reliable and relatively quick technique, frequent complications for all mega systems have been described. These usually include infections, rotational alignment and loosening of the femoral fixation or subsequent proximal femoral fractures. Infections usually can be related to large soft tissue compromise or extensive exposure or longer procedure times. Thus implantation of such reconstruction systems should be reserved to specialised centers, with adequate facilities experience, in order to minimise complications rates and optimise patients function postoperative.

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases the TKA is well fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For loose components, revision is typically indicated. Often, distal femoral mega prostheses are required to deal with metaphyseal bone loss. Good results have been reported in small series, however, complications, including infection remain concerning, and these implants are incredibly expensive. Although performing a mega prosthesis in the setting of a well fixed TKA is not unreasonable due to immediate full weight bearing, in my opinion, prosthetic replacement should be limited to cases of failed ORIF (rare), or in cases where fixation is likely to fail (i.e., severe osteolysis distally). For the majority of fractures above well fixed components, internal fixation is preferred for the main reason that the overwhelming majority of these fractures will heal. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral locked 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.

After over 4 decades of experience with total knee arthroplasty, many lessons have been learned regarding surgical technique.

These include exposure issues, alignment methods, bone preparation, correction of deformity, implantation techniques and wound closure.

Where is the proper placement of the skin incision relative to the tibial tubercle? How does one safely evert the patella in the obese or ankylosed knee? Can a tibial tubercle osteotomy be avoided in the ankylosed knee? How does one protect the patellar tendon insertion from avulsing? How do you protect the soft tissues from debris and contamination and minimise the potential for infection? Can exposure be maintained if there are few surgical assistants? How do you find the lateral inferior genicular vessels and minimise postoperative bleeding? How do you know where to enter the intramedullary femoral canal for placement of the distal femoral alignment device? How can you avoid notching the anterior femoral cortex when in-between sizes or there is a pre-existing dysplastic trochlea? How can you correct a varus deformity without performing a formal MCL release? An inverted cruciform lateral retinacular release effectively corrects a severe valgus deformity and avoids the need for an LCL release. Trimming the posterior femoral condyles and removing posterior osteophytes is best accomplished using a trial femoral component as a template. Zone 4 femoral bone-cement radiolucencies can be minimised using the “smear” technique. The best indicator of potential postoperative flexion is not preoperative flexion but is intraoperative flexion against gravity measured after capsular closure.

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

Distal femoral varus osteotomy is a procedure intended to relieve pain, correct valgus deformity, and delay or possibly prevent the progression of lateral compartment osteoarthritis in the knee. It is indicated in patients who are considered too young or are too active to be considered candidates for total knee arthroplasty. It also allows protection of the lateral compartment in cases of meniscal or cartilage allograft. In patients who are a good candidate for total knee replacement, TKR is the procedure of choice.

A sloping joint line requires that the correction be performed above the knee. Several methods of distal femoral varus osteotomy have been proposed. These include a medial closing wedge, a lateral opening wedge, and a dome osteotomy. In the author's experience, the medial closing wedge has proven reliable. This technique uses a 90-degree blade plate, and does not require any angle measurements during surgery. Fixation is secure, allowing early motion. Healing proceeds rapidly in the metaphyseal bone, and non-unions have not occurred. The desired final alignment was zero degrees, which was reliably achieved using this method.

Medium to long-term results are generally satisfactory. When conversion to total knee replacement is required, standard components may generally be used, and function was not compromised by the prior osteotomy.

Distal femoral varus osteotomy is a successful procedure for lateral compartment osteoarthritis in a valgus knee. It is indicated in patients who are too young or active for total knee arthroplasty, and provides an excellent functional and cosmetic result.

Since 2005, the author has performed 422 Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasties (UKA) using a mobile bearing. There were 263 females and 119 males, (40 patients had bilateral UKAs) with a mean age of 62 years.

The indications were: Isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis with ‘bone-on-bone’ contact, which had failed prior conservative treatment; Medial femoral condyle avascular necrosis or spontaneous osteonecrosis, which had failed prior conservative treatment.

Patients were recommended UKA only if the following anatomic requirements were met: Intact ACL, Full thickness articular cartilage wear limited to the anterior half of the medial tibial plateau, Unaffected lateral compartment cartilage, Unaffected patellar cartilage on the lateral facet, Less than 10 degrees of flexion deformity, Over 100 degrees of knee flexion, Varus deformity not exceeding 15 degrees.

Exclusion criteria for surgery were BMI of more than 30, prior high tibial osteotomy, and inflammatory arthritis. All cases were performed with a tourniquet inflated using a minimally-invasive incision with a quadriceps-sparing approach. Both femoral and tibial components were cemented.

Rehabilitation consisted of teaching the patients 6 exercises to regain strength and range of motion, and weight-bearing as tolerated with a cane began from the evening of surgery. Most patients were discharged home the next morning; bilaterals usually stayed a day longer.

We have previously described our results and the factors determining alignment. In a more recent study we have compared the coronal postoperative limb alignment and knee joint line obliquity after medial UKA with a clinically and radiologically (less than Grade 2 medial OA) normal contralateral lower limb. In our series of 423 cases, we have had 1 revision for aseptic loosening of both components, and 4 meniscal dislocations. There have been no cases of wound infections and thromboembolism. We are currently undertaking a review of the 2–10 year follow-up of our cases. The vast majority of our patients have been generally very satisfied with the results. Our study shows that most patients (who have no disease in the contralateral knee) regain their ‘natural’ alignment and joint line obliquity comparable to their contralateral limb.

Over the past few years our percentage of UKAs has been steadily rising. UKA serves as a definitive procedure in the elderly. We see it as a suitable procedure in middle-aged patients who want an operation that provides a quick recovery, full function and range of motion, and near-normal kinematics, with the understanding that they have a small chance of conversion to a total knee arthroplasty in the future.

Lateral meniscal failure and secondary valgus with lateral compartment arthrosis is quite common in the developed world. The varus knee is the common phenotype of the ‘jock’ of both genders, while the valgus knee is a common consequence of lateral meniscal tear, skiing or ‘catwalk’ life. Occurring more commonly in ‘flamingo’ phenotypes, lateral meniscal failure can be disabling, entirely preventing high heels being worn for instance.

While no one would argue the necessary role for the medical management of patients with early knee arthritis, significant controversy remains regarding the ideal treatment for a patient with bone-on-bone osteoarthritis who could equally be treated with a high tibial osteotomy, a uni-compartmental total knee, potentially a patello-femoral replacement if dealing with isolated patello-femoral disease or lastly, a complete total knee replacement. While clearly to date there has not been consensus on this issue, a review of the arguments, both pro and con, should be used as a guide to the surgeon in making this clinical judgment.

Patient Satisfaction: Many ardent supporters of uni-compartmental knee replacements espouse one of the principle benefits of the uni knee as much greater patient satisfaction. Unfortunately, what is never taken into account is the pre-selection bias that occurs in this patient population. Patients with the most minimal amount of arthritis and those with the greatest range of motion are pre-selected to undergo a uni-compartmental knee replacement compared to the more advanced arthritic knee with mal-alignment and more significant preoperative disability that will undergo a total knee replacement. Additionally the sources of data to draw the conclusions must be carefully analyzed. We must avoid using data from small series with unblinded patients performed by surgeons expert in the technique. Instead registry data, with its broad based applicability, is a much more logical source of information. Of significance, when over 27,000 patients were assessed regarding satisfaction following knee surgery; there was no difference in proportions of satisfied patients whether they had a total knee or a uni-compartmental knee.

Implant Longevity: Once again large prospective cohort data in the form of arthroplasty registries strongly favors total knee arthroplasty over uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry demonstrated higher revision rates with uni's as compared with total knee replacements. In the Australian Joint Replacement Registry the cumulative 13 year percent revision rate for primary total knee replacements is 6.8% and for uni-compartmental knee replacements is 15.5%. Higher failure rates in uni-compartmental knee replacements seen in Australia has correlated to a significant decrease in the number of uni's being performed, which peaked at 15.1% in 2003 and in 2014 has reduced to 4.7%. There is a direct correlation to age, with younger patients having a significantly higher percentage of revision following uni-compartmental knee replacements (25% failure rate at 11 years if less than 55 years old). There is also tremendous variability in the success rate of the uni in the Australian Registry depending on the implant design (5 year cumulative revision rate range 5.0% to 18.9%), which is simply not seen in the total knee replacement population (5 year cumulative revision rate range 1.6% to 7.7%).

While one can perform the philosophical exercise of debating the merits of a total knee versus uni-compartmental knee, the evidence is overwhelming that in the hands of the masses a total knee replacement patient will have equal satisfaction to a uni-compartmental patient, and will enjoy a much lower probability of revision in the short term and in the long term.

Implant selection in TKA remains highly variable. Surgeons consider preoperative deformity, surgical experience, retention or substitution for the PCL, type of articulation and polyethylene, and fixation with or without cement. We have most frequently implanted the same implant for the majority of patients. This is based on the fact that multiple large series of TKA's have demonstrated that the most durable TKA's have been non-modular metal backed tibial components, retention of the PCL, with a cemented all poly patellar component.

The debate of how to handle the PCL continues. In most studies at 10 years there is little reported difference. Second decade concerns usually result from polyethylene issues related to polymer wear. Sagittal “dishing” or ultracongruent implants may be a middle road that allow PCL release or resection and controlled kinematics offering improved short term results. Long term function remains the goal and it appears a CR knee offers that capacity.

Newer implants such as “high flex” and “gender” specific designs have not demonstrated significant functional improvements in controlled series. Uncemented knees in many series have performed well for many surgeons from a fixation standpoint. Polymer wear must be addressed for long term durability.

Soft-tissue release plays an integral part in primary total knee arthroplasty by ‘balancing’ the knee. Asian patients often present late and consequently may have large deformities due to significant bone loss and contractures medially, and stretching of the lateral collateral ligament. Extra-articular deformities may aggravate the situation further and make correction of these deformities more arduous.

Several techniques have been described for correction of deformity by soft-tissue releases. However, releasing the collateral ligament during TKA has unintended consequences such as the creation of significant mediolateral instability and a flexion gap which exceeds the extension gap; both of these may require a constrained prosthesis to achieve stability. We will show that soft-tissue balance can be achieved even in cases of severe varus deformity without performing a superficial medial collateral ligament release.

The steps are: 1. Determining preoperatively whether deformity is predominantly intra-articular or extra-articular; 2. Individualizing the valgus resection angle and bony resection depth; 3. Reduction osteotomy, posteromedial capsule resection, sliding medial condylar osteotomy, extra-articular corrective osteotomy; 4. Compensating for bone loss; 5. Only rarely deploying a more constrained device.

Case examples will be presented to illustrate the entire spectrum of varus deformities.

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

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

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

Perioperative blood conservation remains an important topic today in order to reduce complications, improve function, and facilitate recovery after a total knee replacement (TKR). Studies have shown that the degree of postoperative anemia is related to an increase in complications. A greater blood loss and need for transfusion is associated with a higher risk of infection, a slower recovery process, increased morbidity to patients, as well as an increased cost to the health care system.

Typical blood loss estimates range from 800cc to over 1700cc, when accounting not only for intraoperative but postoperative blood loss. Several strategies have been developed to help mitigate the risk of perioperative blood loss and need for subsequent transfusion.

Firstly, preoperative measures such as vitamin and mineral supplementation can ensure the starting hemoglobin and red cell count are maximised. Additionally, erythropoietin can be helpful in refractory cases of preoperative anemia. Preoperative autologous blood donation was used extensively in the past, but has fallen out of favor due to its inefficiency and cost.

Intraoperatively, measures such as the use of a tourniquet, meticulous technique, and expeditious surgery can help reduce blood loss. The most effective method, however, has been the use of tranexamic acid (TXA). TXA, an antifibrinolytic compound, has been extremely effective at reducing perioperative blood loss without increasing the risk of thromboembolic events. TXA can be used topically or intravenously. Other methods that can reduce intraoperative blood loss include the use of fibrin sealants, applied to the soft tissues and bony surfaces around the knee.

Postoperatively, the avoidance of wound drains is associated with a higher blood count and reduced transfusion risk. Alternatively, drainage reinfusion systems can be used to raise the postoperative blood count, particularly in cases of bilateral TKR.

Over the past fifteen years, the average length of stay for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has gradually decreased from several days to overnight. The most logical and safest next step is outpatient arthroplasty. Through the era of so-called minimally invasive surgery, perhaps the most intriguing advancements are not related to the surgery itself, but instead the areas of rapid recovery techniques and perioperative protocols. Rapid recovery techniques and perioperative protocols have been refined to allow for same-day discharge with improved outcomes.

As mentioned, the single most important outcome from the minimally invasive movement has been the multi-modal approach to pain management of patients undergoing arthroplasty. Along with blood loss management, using tranexamic acid and hypotensive anesthetic techniques, this multi-modal program is the most important variable in reducing or avoiding side-effects. In any arthroplasty procedure, side-effects that need to be addressed include the negative effects of narcotics and blood loss. Anesthetic techniques, utilizing local nerve blocks, such as the adductor canal block and sciatic blocks for knee arthroplasty augment intraoperative anesthesia and provide postoperative pain relief and quicker mobilization. Additionally, pericapsular injection with a cocktail of local anesthetic helps significantly with pain relief and recovery reducing the amount of oral narcotic utilised in the early postoperative period. Many have utilised liposomal bupivacaine in these cocktails to successfully increase the period of pain relief.

The use of multi-modal perioperative protocols can help avoid narcotics and helps avoid the side-effects of nausea. We also utilise an aggressive prophylactic antiemetic program with dexamethasone, ondansetron and a scopolamine patch. Patients without any significant cardiovascular history are given celecoxib preoperatively, which is continued for approximately two weeks postoperatively. Immediately postoperative, acetaminophen and additional dexamethasone are administered intravenously.

The multi-modal protocols to address fear, risk, and side-effects will increase the eligibility for outpatient surgery and decrease the need for overnight hospitalization. By focusing on the patient and avoiding over-treatment, outpatient arthroplasty is quickly becoming the standard of care for total hip replacement in the same way other procedures transitioned from hospital in-patient surgeries to ambulatory procedures.

The goals of any rehabilitation protocol should be to control pain, improve ambulation, maximise range of motion, develop muscle strength, and provide emotional support. Over 85% of TKA patients will recover knee function regardless of which rehabilitation protocol is adopted but the process can be facilitated by proper pain control, physical therapy, and emotional support. The remaining 15% of patients will have difficulty obtaining proper knee function secondary to significant pain, limited preoperative motion, and/or the development of arthrofibrosis. This subset will require a special, individualised rehabilitation program, which may involve prolonged oral analgesia, continued physical therapy, more diagnostic studies and occasionally manipulation. Controlling pain is the mainstay of any treatment plan. The program described herein has been used at Ranawat Orthopaedics over the last 10 years in more than 2000 TKAs.

This session will deal with common problems and challenges in knee arthroplasty surgery. It will include discussion of indications, surgical options, surgical technique, and management of complications.

This symposium is intended to focus on common problems that face all of us as orthopaedic surgeons rather than deal with issues that are almost never encountered. The panel includes a group of experienced surgeons who deal with such problems in their own practice.

Minimizing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is of interest to all surgeons performing hip and knee arthroplasty. Among the most critical factors to reducing the risk of infection include the use of pre-incisional antibiotics, appropriate skin preparation with clippers (as opposed to a razor for hair removal) and the use of an alcohol-based skin preparation. Host factors are also likewise critically important including obesity, diabetes, inflammatory arthritis, renal insufficiency, skin disorders and patients who are otherwise immune-compromised. If modifiable risk factors are identified, it would seem reasonable to delay elective surgery until these can be optimised.

One other factor to consider is the nutritional status of the patient. In a study of 501 consecutive revisions, we found that serological markers suggestive of malnutrition (albumin, transferrin or total lymphocyte count) were extremely common in the revision population. Specifically, among patients who presented for treatment of a chronic infection, 53% (67 of 126) had at least one marker for malnutrition. The prevalence of serological markers of malnutrition was lower (33%) in the group of patients undergoing revision for an aseptic reason suggesting that malnutrition was a risk factor for septic failure (p < 0.001 and OR 2.1). Interestingly, malnutrition was most common among patients of normal weight but was also common among obese patients (so-called “paradoxical” malnutrition). What was more disturbing, however, that of those patients undergoing an aseptic revision, serum markers of malnutrition were associated with a 6x risk of acute postoperative infection complicating the patient's aseptic revision.

At our center, we also have studied the use of dilute betadine at the end of the case, prior to wound closure, in an attempt to decrease the load of bacteria in the wound. In a retrospective review the prevalence of acute postoperative infection was reduced from just under 1% (18/1862) to 0.15% (1 of 688; p = 0.04). It is critical that the betadine utilised be STERILE and the dilution we use is 0.35% made by diluting 17.5cc of 10% povidone-iodine paint in 500cc of normal saline. Although this is a retrospective review, it does suggest a benefit and we have not seen any problems associated with its use.

The two-staged exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has become the “gold standard” worldwide. Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement by Prof. Buchholz in the 1970s, the ENDO-Klinik followed a distinct one staged exchange for PJI in over 85 % of all our infected cases until today. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for the PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence, that a two-staged procedure has a clearly higher success rate than a one-staged approach. Although postulated in relevant articles, most recommendations, e.g. duration of antibiotics, static vs. mobile spacer, interval of spacer retention, cemented vs. uncemented implant fixation, are based on Level IV to III evidence studies or expert opinions, rather than on prospective randomised or comparative data.

Potentially a cemented one-stage exchange offers certain advantages, as mainly based on need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics & hospitalization time and reduced relative overall costs. In order to fulfill a one-staged approach with the above described potential success, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and postoperative details, which need to be meticulously respected. The absolute mandatory infrastructural requirement is based on the clear evidence of the bacteria in combination with a distinct patient specific plan, by an experienced microbiologist, for following topical antibiotics in the bone cement with combined systemic antibiotics.

Mandatory preoperative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of the bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogramm is essential, to specify the antibiotics loaded into the bone cement, which allows a high topical antibiotic elution directly at the surgical site. A specific treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. Contraindications for a one-staged exchange include: failure of >2 previous one-staged procedures, infection spreading to the nerve-vessel bundle, unclear preoperative bacteria specification, unavailability of appropriate antibiotics, high antibiotic resistance.

The surgical success relies not only on the complete removal of all preexisting hardware material (including cement and restrictors), furthermore an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material is needed. Mixing antibiotics into the cement needs to fulfill the following criteria: Appropriate antibiogramm, adequate elution characteristics, bactericidal (exception clindamycin), powder form (never use liquid AB), maximum addition of 10 %/PMMA powder. Current principles of modern cementing techniques should be applied.

Postoperative systemic antibiotic administration is usually followed for only 10–14 days (exception: streptococci). We recommend an early and aggressive mobilization within the first 8 days postoperatively, due to the cemented fixation an immediate mobilization under full weight bearing becomes possible in most cases.

Persistence or recurrence of infection remains the most relevant complication in the one-staged technique. As failure rates with a two-staged exchange have been described between 9% and 20% in non-resistant bacteria, the ENDO-Klinik data shows comparative results after 8–10 years of follow up.

In summary a cemented one-stage exchange offers various advantages. Mainly the need for only one operation, shorter hospitalization, reduced systemic antibiotics, lower overall cost and relative high patient satisfaction. However, a well-defined preoperative planning regime including an experienced microbiologist is absolutely mandatory.

Two stage exchange treatment of the infected TKA involves two separate surgical procedures separated by an interval of several weeks of pathogen specific antibiotic therapy.

The first stage involves removal of all of the infected arthroplasty components and any cement or foreign material, followed by aggressive debridement of nonviable bone and soft tissues. This is followed by placement of an antibiotic-laden spacer which may be either static (molded solid PMMA block) or mobile (shaped blocks or implants that allow knee motion). With both static and mobile spacers high local doses of antibiotic are delivered from the cement in addition to systemic antibiotic therapy usually employing an IV for around 6 weeks post debridement. The choice between static and mobile spacers is dictated by surgeon preference, soft tissue status (i.e. need for adjunctive muscle flaps), and by the severity of bone loss present with static spacers more likely to be used for more major soft tissue or bone defect cases. Mobile spacers have the advantage of allowing interval motion of the knee which may improve final range of motion. Static spacers usually require adjunctive brace or cast immobilization to prevent migration and bone damage.

The second stage is performed at around 6 to 8 weeks after completion of systemic antibiotic therapy and preferably after normalization (or improvement) in laboratory indicators such as ESR and CRP. Routine repeat aspiration of all knees before reimplantation is not usual, but selective aspiration for culture may be helpful if concern exists that infection may still be present due to systemic signs, wound appearance or abnormal laboratory parameters. The second stage procedure involves removal of the antibiotic-laden spacer, repeat complete debridement of the knee, and insertion of revision knee components. Frequently adjunctive stems, blocks, cones or sleeves are needed to achieve adequate implant fixation due to associated bone loss. Careful attention to soft tissue balancing is required at the time of reimplantation in order to optimise motion and function while also avoiding laxity or maltracking.

Two stage exchange remains the gold standard in North America for the management of infected TKA. While this method is used by some surgeons for all chronically infected TKA patients, it is employed even by most one stage exchange devotees when the infecting organism is unknown, infection involves a highly resistant or difficult to manage pathogen (i.e. fungal), is associated with a sinus track or marginal soft tissues, or in many cases of immunocompromised patients or those with multiple comorbidities.

Obtaining primary wound healing in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is essential to a good result. Wound healing disturbances (WHD) can occur and the consequences can be devastating to the patient and to the surgeon. Determination of the host healing capacity can be useful in predicting complications. Cierney and Mader classified patients as Type A: no healing compromises and Type B: systemic or local healing compromise factors present. Local factors include traumatic arthritis with multiple previous incisions, extensive scarring, lymphodema, poor vascular perfusion, and excessive local adipose deposition. Systemic compromising factors include diabetes, rheumatic diseases, renal or liver disease, immunocompromise, steroids, smoking, and poor nutrition. Low serum albumin, total lymphocyte count, and low transferrin increase WHD. In high risk situations the surgeon should encourage positive patient choices such as smoking cessation and nutritional supplementation to modify healing responses. Use of tourniquet in obese patients also increases WHD.

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

If wound drainage or healing problems do occur, immediate action is required. Deep sepsis can be ruled out with a joint aspiration and cell count (less than 2500), differential (less than 60% polys), and negative culture and sensitivity. All hematomas should be evacuated and necrosis or dehiscence should be managed by debridement to obtain a live wound.

A majority of patients present with varus alignment and predominantly medial compartment disease. The secret of success in osteoarthritis (OA) treatment is patient selection and patient specific treatment. Different wear patterns have been described and that knowledge should be utilised in modern knee surgery. In case of isolated anteromedial OA, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) should be one of the therapeutic options available to the knee surgeon.

The discussion not to offer a UKA to patients is based on the fear of the surgeon not being able to identify the right patient and not being able to perform the surgery accurately. The common modes of failure for UKA, which are dislocation or overcorrection leading to disease progression, can be avoided with a fixed bearing implant. Wear can probably be avoided with newer polyethylenes and avoidance of overstuffing in flexion of the knee. Revision for unexplained pain and unknown causes should disappear once surgeons understand persistent pain after surgery much better than they do today.

The choice in favor of UKA is a choice of function over survivorship, a choice for reduced comorbidity and lower mortality. Many of the common problems in TKA are not an issue in UKA. Component overhang, decreased posterior offset, changed joint line height, gap mismatch, flexion gap instability, lift off and paradoxical motion hardly exist in UKA if the replacement is performed according to resurfacing principles with respect for the native knee anatomy.

New technologies like navigation, PSI and robotics will help with alignment and component positioning. Surgeon education and training should allow over time UKA to be performed by all of us.

There exists a variety of options for a medial compartment knee with osteoarthritis, specifically a unicompartmental knee, high tibial osteotomy, and total knee arthroplasty. This surgeon prefers a rotating platform posterior stabilised total knee to the unicompartmental knee. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in younger patients is being performed with increasing frequency. While UKA is a powerful marketing tool because of its minimally invasive nature and quality of knee function that is superior to the total knee arthroplasty (TKA), it has tremendous drawbacks. These include: the selection criteria is very specific and the number of patients that fit in that category is small, there is a steep learning curve for the surgeon to perfect the technique, higher failure due to wear and loss of fixation, and unexplained pain. Based on level 1 and 2 evidence available it is not justified to do more UKAs at present when the results of a TKA are so successful.

A recent proposed modification in surgical technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been the introduction of patient specific instrumentation or custom cutting guides (CCGs). With CCGs, preoperative three-dimensional imaging is used to manufacture cutting blocks specific to a patient's native anatomy, with proposed benefits including their ease of use; a decrease in operative times and instrument trays and improved cost-efficiency; the ability to preoperative plan component size, alignment, and position; and an improvement in postoperative alignment versus the use of standard instrumentation. However, to date the majority of reports have not confirmed these proposed benefits.

Prior studies focusing on cost-efficiency have shown limited benefits in terms of operating and room turnover times, which fail to offset the additional cost of preoperative imaging and fabrication of the CCGs. Furthermore, a number of reports have noted the frequent need for surgeon-directed changes and alterations in alignment intraoperatively, along with errors in the predetermined implant size. The use of CCGs has also failed to improve overall mechanical and component alignment versus standard instrumentation in the majority of investigations. Perhaps most importantly, no investigation has demonstrated CCGs to improve clinical outcomes postoperatively. Therefore, in the absence of proven clinical or radiographic improvements, the continued implementation of CCGs must be questioned.

Patient specific instruments have been developed in response to the conundrum of limited accuracy of intramedullary and extramedullary alignment guides and chaos caused by computer assisted orthopaedic surgery. This technology facilitates preoperative planning by providing the surgeon with a three dimensional (3-D) anatomical reconstruction of the knee, thereby improving the surgeon's understanding of the preoperative pathology. Intramedullary canal penetration of the femur and tibia is unnecessary, and consequently, any potential for fat emboli is eliminated. Component position and alignment are improved with a decrease in the number of outliers. Patient specific instruments utilise detailed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scans of the patient's knee with additional images from the hip and ankle for determination of critical landmarks. From these studies a 3-D model of the patient's knee is created and with integration of rapid prototyping technology, guides are created to apply to the patient's native anatomy to direct the placement of the cutting jigs and ultimately the placement of the components.

The steps in considering utilization of patient specific guides are as follows: 1) the surgeon determines that the patient is a candidate for TKA, 2) an MRI or CT scan is obtained at an approved facility in accordance with a specific protocol, 3) the MRI or CT is forwarded to the manufacturer, 4) the manufacturer creates the 3-D reconstructions, anatomical landmarks are identified, implant size is determined, and ultimately femoral and tibial component implant placement is determined via an algorithm, 4) the surgical plan is executed, 5) the physician reviews and modifies or approves the plan, 6) the guides are then produced via rapid prototyping technology and delivered to the hospital for the surgical procedure.

Guides generated from MRIs are designed to uniquely register on cartilage surface whereas guides produced from CT scans must register on bony anatomy. There are currently two types of guides produced: those which register on the femur and tibia and allow for the placement of pins to accommodate the standard resection blocks; and those produced by some manufacturers which accommodate the saw blade and therefore are a combination of resection and pin guides.

The utilization of patient-specific positioning guides in TKA has several benefits. They facilitate preoperative planning, obviate the need for violation of the intramedullary canals, reduce operating times and improve OR efficiency, decrease instrumentation requirements and thereby reduce potential for perioperative contamination. They are easier to use than computer navigation with no capital equipment purchase and no significant learning curve. Most importantly, patient-specific guides facilitate accurate component position and alignment, which ultimately has been shown to enhance long-term survivorship in total knee arthroplasty.

Some DEFINITIONS are necessary: “STEMS” refers to “intramedullary stem extensions”, which may be of a variety of lengths and diameters, fixed with cement, porous coating or press fit alone and which may be modular or an inherent part of the prosthesis. The standard extension keel on the tibia does not qualify as a “stem (extension)”. COMPLEX implies multiple variables acting on the end result of the arthroplasty with the capability of inducing failure, as well as necessary variations to the standard surgical technique. A lesser degree of predictability is implied. More specifically, the elements usually found in an arthritic knee and used for the arthroplasty are missing, so that cases of COMPLEX primary TKA include: Soft tissue coverage-(not relevant here), Extensor mechanism deficiency-patellectomy, Severe deformity, Extra-articular deformity, Instability: Varus valgus, Instability: Plane of motion, Instability: Old PCL rupture, Dislocated patella, Stiffness, Medical conditions: Neuromuscular disorder, Ipsilateral arthroplasty, Prior incisions, Fixation hardware, Osteopenia, Ipsilateral hip arthrodesis, Ipsilateral below knee amputation, etc.

Complexity includes MORE than large deformity, i.e., success with large deformity does NOT mean success with constrained implants regardless of indication. In addition, the degree of constraint must be specified to be meaningful. NECESSARY presumably this means: “necessary to ensure durable fixation in the face of poor bone quality or more mechanically constrained” and SUFFICIENT suggests that stems, by themselves or in some shape of form, by themselves “will ensure success (specifically here) of fixation”. If we can start with the second proposal, that STEMS are SUFFICIENT for success the answer is: “NO”, many more aspects of surgical technique and implant design are required. Even if all other aspects of the technique are exemplary, some types of stems or techniques are inadequate, e.g., completely uncemented, short stem extensions. The answer to the first proposal is: “YES, in many cases”. The problem will be to determine which cases. There are philosophical analogies to this question that we already know the answer to.

ANALOGY: Is a life-raft necessary on a boat? Yes, you may not use it, but it is considered necessary. Is a life-raft “sufficient” on a boat? No, other problems may occur. Are seat belts necessary? Are child seats necessary? The AAOS already has a position on child restraints, an analogous situation, where a party who cannot control their situation (anesthetised patient/ child) functions in the care of a responsible party. The objection may be argued in terms of cost saving by NOT using increased fixation. A useful analogy, (that would of course require specific analysis), is that of patellar resurfacing: universal resurfacing is cost-effective when considering the expense of even a small number of secondary resurfacings. Of course a complex arthroplasty that requires a revision procedure is far more expensive than secondary patellar resurfacing and so universal use of the enhanced fixation in the face of increased constraint makes sense. The human cost of revision surgery tips the balance irrefutably.

DANGER-We must avoid the glib conclusion, often based on poor quality data, that constrained implants do not need additional intramedullary fixation (with stem extensions). When “complexity” is involved, complex analysis is appropriate to select the best course.

For most complex primary total knee replacement there is associated soft tissue and bone loss. A constrained condylar implant can be useful in improving the stability of the knee after revision. Augmentation is commonly used to deal with bone loss on the femoral and tibial side of the joint. Stems are known to reduce the load at the interface of the femoral and tibial component and transfer the load into the medullary canals. There are problems with using stems in the complex primary knee setting however, which include: (1) increased cost, (2) difficulty with removal should further revision be necessary, (3) violation of the intramedullary canals if infection occurs, (4) increased operating time. For these reasons a CCK implant was developed without stems in 1998. The use of this device must be very selective and it is primarily used for severe valgus deformity in elderly patients. In a revision setting where there is good preservation of femoral and/or tibial bone but the need for increased constraint is present (e.g. unicompartmental, cruciate retaining knee) a CCK without stems can be used with good results. We retrospectively reviewed 36 primary constrained condylar knee implants without stem extensions from 1998 to 2000 in 31 patients with knees in 15 degrees valgus or greater. All patients were followed up for a minimum 10 years (range, 10 to 12 years). One patient had aseptic loosening and needed to be revised with stemmed components at 9 years post surgery. Wear was found in two patients. One patient, with severe rheumatoid arthritis, had infection and required a two-stage re-implantation procedure. Patients who are very active or heavy body weight where stresses may be excessive at the implant bone interface should have stems utilised.

Surgeons have widely disparate views on how to improve outcomes for patients following total knee arthroplasty. Over the past decade we have witnessed a remarkable transformation of the entire process of care surrounding total knee arthroplasty. The entirety of the patient experience after contemporary total knee replacement in 2015 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 postoperative 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, 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 perioperative pain management, blood management, and early-mobilization therapy protocols account for the greatest share of improvements in patient experience over the past decade.

With that paradigm shift in the hospital/surgical part of the total knee experience comes renewed interest and emphasis on function after TKA. Most surgeons are well aware of a “satisfaction gap” between the results of total hip replacement and total knee replacement. While studies report varying percentages (based on the definition of satisfaction and particular patient populations) what is clear is that 10–20% of patients are not fully satisfied after knee replacement. Researchers have highlighted some of this discordance with the introduction of the Forgotten Joint Score. These researchers and others can consistently point to higher satisfaction or fewer residual symptoms in patients who have undergone hip arthroplasty versus knee arthroplasty. What is also interesting to note, however, is that even amongst otherwise healthy control patients there are more baseline symptoms referable to the knee than to the hip. This may indicate that with knee arthroplasty we are chasing a more elusive target than is the case in hip arthroplasty.

Most surgeons today would agree that alignment plays an important role in TKA function and survival, but certainly factors other than alignment are also important in determining the survival of modern total knee replacements. The evidence suggests that ideal alignment after knee replacement is probably very specific for any given patient and influenced by individual differences. There is a complex interplay between limb alignment, component rotation, sizing, ligament balance, and gait dynamics. Moving forward, more attention needs to be devoted to function in knee replacement in order to improve patient satisfaction. While the mechanical axis has been useful, future improvements are dependent on hitting better targets. The historic focus on radiographic outliers to explain total knee failures has been incomplete at best and has possibly dulled and constrained our collective intellectual curiosity.

Persistent post-surgical pain 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 fortunately 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 especially by the author of this abstract. The optimum treatment I have found is lumbar sympathetic blocks. 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. Some of this pain is actually mechanical, especially in those with no benefits such as hairstylists. Perceived pain is widespread. The classic treatise on this is Dr. Ian McNabb's book “Backache”. It should be studied by all orthopaedic surgeons, who wish to understand pain complaints.

Any experienced knee surgeon will have his list of red flags or caveats. These are often politically incorrect and this information is transferred to young surgeons, usually in dim bars late at night. 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 is also the recently described Fern Silverman's syndrome.

Maltracking of the patella associated with TKA is usually the result of several factors coming together in the same patient. Causes of maltracking include residual valgus limb alignment, valgus placement of the femoral component, patella alta, poor prosthetic geometry, internal rotation of the femoral or tibial component, excessive patellar thickness, asymmetric patellar preparation, failure to perform a lateral release when indicated, capsular dehiscence, and dynamic instability.

Prior to wound closure after implantation of total knee arthroplasty, patellar tracking should be evaluated to assess the potential need for lateral release. The incidence of lateral release in the past was quite high in some series.

Most experienced surgeons will report a lateral release rate less than 5% for varus knees. It is usually higher for valgus knees because they are often associated with patella alta and preoperative subluxation. The classic intraoperative test for patellar tracking has been referred to as the “rule of no thumb” In this test, first suggested by Fred Ewald, the patella is returned to the trochlear groove in extension with the capsule unclosed. The knee is then passively flexed and one assesses whether or not the patella tracks congruently without capsular closure. If it does and the medial facet of the patellar component contacts the medial aspect of the trochlea no lateral release need be considered. If the patella dislocates or tilts, lateral release may be necessary. The test should be repeated with 1 suture closing the capsule at the level of the superior pole. If tracking then becomes congruent without excessive tension on the suture, no release is necessary. If tilting still persists, some surgeons like to assess tracking with the tourniquet deflated so that any binding effect on the quadriceps can be eliminated from the test. A tight PCL can also impart apparent patellar tilt as the femoral component is drawn posteriorly while the tibia (with its tubercle) moves anteriorly.

Stiffness remains one of the most common, and challenging postoperative complications after TKA. Preoperative motion and diagnosis can influence postoperative motion, and careful patient counseling about expectations is important. Postoperative stiffness should be evaluated by ruling out infections, metal allergy, or too aggressive physical therapy. A careful physical and radiographic examination is required. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in selected cases can be helpful. The best timing to perform MUA is between the 6th and 10th week postoperatively. Careful technique is required to minimise the risk of fracture or soft tissue injury. This requires complete paralysis! For more chronic stiffness, revision may be indicated if an etiology can be identified. An excessively thick patellar resurfacing, an overstuffed tibia insert, an oversized femoral component, or gross malrotation should be corrected. During revision, thorough synovectomy, release of contractures, ligamentous balancing and restoration of the joint line is required. Careful attention to component rotation, and sizing is critical. Downsizing components is helpful to place less volume into the joint space. Patients should be counseled that the results of revision for stiffness are mixed and somewhat unpredictable. More frequent postoperative nurturing is helpful to guide rehabilitation progress. Manipulation after revision at 6 weeks is almost expected.

There is a difference between “functional instability” of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and a case of “TKA instability”. For example a TKA with a peri-prosthetic fracture is unstable, but would not be considered a “case of instability”. The concept of “stability” for a TKA means that the reconstructed joint can maintain its structure and permit normal motion and activities under physiologic loads. The relationship between stability and alignment is that stability maintains alignment. Instability means that there are numerous alignments and almost always the worst one for the loading condition. In the native knee, “instability” is synonymous with ligament injury. If this were true in TKA, then it would be reasonable to treat every “unstable TKA” with a constrained implant. But that is NOT the case. If the key to successful revision of a problem TKA is understanding (and correcting) the specific cause of the problem, then deep understanding of why the TKA is unstable is essential. A case of true “instability” then, is the loss of structural integrity under load as the result of problems with soft tissue stabilizing structures and/or the size or position of components. It is rare that ligament injury alone is the sole cause of instability (valgus instability invariably involves valgus alignment; varus instability usually means some varus alignment and compromised lateral soft tissues). There will be forces (structures) that create instability and forces (structures) that stabilise.

There are three categories of instability: Varus-valgus or coronal: Assuming that the skeleton, implant and fixation are intact. These are usually cases that involve ligament compromise, but the usual cause is CORONAL ALIGNMENT, and this must be corrected. The ligament problem is best solved with mechanical constraint. Gait disturbances that increase the functional alignment problems (hip abductor lurch causing a valgus moment at the knee, scoliosis) may require attention of additional compensation with re-alignment. Plane of motion: Both fixed flexion contractures and recurvatum may result in buckling. The first by exhaustion of the quadriceps (consider doing quadriceps “lunges” with every step) and the second because recurvatum is usually a compensation for extensor insufficiency. The prototype for understanding recurvatum has always been polio. This is perhaps one of the most difficult types of instability to treat. The glib answer has been a hinged prosthesis with an extensor stop but there are profound mechanical reasons why this is flawed thinking. The patient with recurvatum instability due to neurologic compromise of the extensor should be offered an arthrodesis, which they will likely decline. The simpler problem of recurvatum secondary to a patellectomy will benefit from an allograft reconstruction of the patella using a modified technique. A common occurrence is obesity with patellofemoral pain, that the patient has managed with a “patellar avoidance” or “hyperextension gait”. Plane of motion instability is a problem of the EXTENSOR MECHANISM DEFICIENCY. Flexion instability. This results from a flexion gap that is larger than the extension gap, where a polyethylene insert has been selected that permits full extension but leaves the flexion gap unstable. These patients achieve remarkable flexion easily and early, but have difficulties with pain and instability on stairs, with recurrent (non-bloody) effusions and peri-articular tenderness. Revision surgery is necessary. Flexion instability may also occur with posterior stabilised prostheses. So-called “mid-flexion” instability is a contentious concept, poorly understood and as yet, not a reported cause for revision surgery distinct from “FLEXION INSTABILITY”. Flexion instability is a problem of GAP BALANCE.

The major benefit of TKA with tourniquet is operating in a bloodless field. A possible secondary benefit is a better cement-bone interface for fixation.

The disadvantages of tourniquet use for TKA include multiple risk factors both local and systemic: Nerve damage, Altered hemodynamics with limb exsanguinations (15–20% increase in circulatory volume) and reactive hyperemia with tourniquet release (10% increase in limb size increasing soft tissue tension and secondary pain), Delay in recovery of muscle function, Increased risk of DVT with direct trauma to vessel walls and increased levels of thrombin-antithrombin complexes, A 5.3x greater risk for large venous emboli propagation and transesophageal echogenic particles, Vascular injury with higher risk in atherosclerotic, calcified arteries, Increase in wound healing disturbances, Obese patients TKA with tourniquet show impaired endothelial function and more DVTs.

Our initial experience with TKA without tourniquet was in high risk patients with previous DVT or PE, multiple scarring, or compromised cardiovascular status. We have used this method on all patients for the last 14 years. The protocol includes regional anesthesia, incision and approach made with 90-degree knee flexion, meticulous hemostasis, jet lavage and filtered carbon dioxide delivered to dry and prepare bone beds for cementation, application of topical tranexamic acid and routine closure. We have encountered no differences in blood loss or transfusion rates, cement penetration/ fixation, less postoperative pain, faster straight leg raise and knee flexion gains, and fewer wound healing disturbances. We recommend TKA sans tourniquet. Let it bleed!

For as long as surgeons have been performing total and partial knee arthroplasty, surgeons have debated the efficacy, safety, and requirement of a pneumatic tourniquet. Advocates claim that blood loss is less, visualization is improved, and the cement technique is better with the use of a tourniquet. Others would argue that the use of the tourniquet or limited tourniquet use is safer, does not increase blood loss, and does not compromise visualization and cementing technique.

Multiple meta-analyses have been performed that provide very little true evidence of superiority. One such study from Yi et al, concludes that the use of the tourniquet reduces surgical time, intraoperative and total blood loss, but increases postoperative total blood loss. They also conclude that DVT and SSI are “relatively augmented” with use. There may be issues with the timing of tourniquet release in these pooled studies, with others stating that releasing the tourniquet prior to wound closure, supposedly for hemostasis, significantly increases the total and calculated blood loss. Huang et al report that with proper control in the amount of pressure, a debatable topic in and of itself, and shorter duration of inflation, release after closure can reduce blood loss without increased complications. One additional issue is patellar tracking, and the need to lateral release. The tourniquet significantly affects assessment of tracking and the need for lateral release, potentially causing the surgeon to unnecessarily perform a lateral release with the tourniquet inflated.

Lastly, research has suggested that using a tourniquet may affect recovery of lower extremity strength and function. Dennis et al compared quadriceps strength and found that use of the tourniquet resulted in “slightly” lower strength postoperatively out to 3 months. The fatal flaw in this study and others is that there is no accepted minimal clinically important difference for quad function, and thus they powered their study to detect a difference of 12 Nm, and the actual difference, while statistically significant, did not even meet their arbitrary power set point. Thus, while strength may be slightly impaired by the use of a tourniquet, it was not different enough to meet their criteria. Additionally, in their study, 64% of the “no-tourniquet” knees actually had a tourniquet used for cementation to “minimise blood at the bone-cement interface and maximise fixation”. Clearly, even these authors are concerned with the results of not using a tourniquet.

These authors utilise a pneumatic tourniquet in all cases of primary TKA and release the tourniquet prior to closure to ensure hemostasis and accurately assess patellar tracking. In doing so, we use the methodology of limb occlusion pressure to minimise the pressure to that necessary for ensuring a clear field. Additionally, these authors emphasise the ultimate in surgical efficiency allowing for extremely short tourniquet times, even in the most difficult cases. As an example, in 1300 consecutive obese patients with BMI equal or greater than 35, the average tourniquet time for primary TKA was 49 minutes. These short times, with the minimum pressure allow for the best of both worlds and little to no downside.

Whether or not to resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Several methods of dealing with the patella exist: ALWAYS resurface; NEVER resurface; SOMETIMES resurface. There is good reason to consider selective patellar resurfacing.

First, in an age of partial knee arthroplasty we have become more tuned in to analyzing patterns of arthritis. In TKA there is a high percentage of patients who do not have significant patellar cartilage wear or anterolateral knee pain. These patients may be candidates for leaving the patella unresurfaced in TKA. Arno et al found that 42% of patients had no significant patellar arthritis at the time of TKA. Roberts et al found that only 15% of patients should undergo patella resurfacing based on the presence of exposed bone on the patella; the other 85% could be considered suitable for leaving the patella unresurfaced. Second, despite a cumulative incidence of less than 5–10%, problems related to patellar resurfacing account for perhaps the most catastrophic complications encountered, with treatments that have limited success. These complications include fracture, avascular necrosis, extensor mechanism disruption, and anterior knee pain. Third, it is a fallacy to think that anterior knee pain (AKP) does not exist despite primary patellar resurfacing in TKA. Meftah (Ranawat) et al found that AKP persists in 30% of patients and new AKP develops in 10% of patients after TKA with patellar resurfacing. Barrack et al found that with patellar resurfacing the incidence of AKP is 28% in patients without preop AKP and 9% in those with preop AKP. They also found that without patellar resurfacing the incidence of new AKP was 14% and persistent AKP was 23%. Fourth, only roughly 44–64% of patients who undergo secondary patellar resurfacing for AKP after TKA with an unresurfaced patella actually get relief of their pain, suggesting that there is some other etiology of anterior knee pain. Residual component malalignment, boxy femoral components, PF overstuffing, referred pain or asymmetric resurfacing may explain ongoing pain. Finally, the data in well-designed studies show that selective patellar resurfacing can produce similar outcomes with and without resurfacing, particularly in those without significant patellar arthritis. In multiple studies, higher rates of secondary surgery occur when the patella is left unresurfaced in primary TKA, but this is for “pain” without clear etiology.

On the other hand secondary surgery is rarely performed in TKA with patellar resurfacing for “pain” only, despite its high incidence. The quality of patellar cartilage at the time of primary TKA should be considered, as that may be the best indicator of whether a knee will do well without patellar resurfacing (that is, selective patellar resurfacing may be a better idea than never resurfacing the patella).

While patellar resurfacing remains controversial in modern TKA, excellent outcomes are achievable with, and without, primary patellar resurfacing. Selectively leaving the patella unresurfaced when there is limited patellar arthritis may not only be highly effective, but it may also limit the incidence of secondary resurfacing that may occur with more substantial patellar arthritis while also minimizing the risk of some of the devastating complications that can occur due to patellar resurfacing in TKA.

The decision to resurface the patella has been well studied. While regional differences exist, the overwhelming choice by most surgeons in the United States is to resurface the patella. Data supports that this is the correct choice.

Articular cartilage on metal has not been shown to be a good long term bearing surface. Cushner et al has also shown that cartilage in the arthritic knee has significant pathologic abnormalities.

Patella surfacing has excellent long-term results with a low complication rate. Anterior knee pain is a common complaint after knee replacement and is even more common in TKA with unresurfaced patella. Pakos et al had more reoperations and greater anterior knee pain when the patella was NOT resurfaced. Parvizi et al also found less patient satisfaction with unresurfaced patellas.

Meta-analysis results indicate higher revision rates with unresurfaced patellas. Bilateral knee studies also favor resurfaced patella. Higher revision rates were also confirmed in the Swedish Registry with a 140% higher revision rate in TKA with unresurfaced patellas.

In addition second operations to resurface the patella often are unsuccessful at alleviating pain.

Surgeons who choose not to resurface the patella must accept that their patients will have the same or greater degree of anterior knee pain and a significantly greater risk for reoperation.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most successful procedures in orthopaedic surgery. Although originally limited to more elderly and less active individuals, the inclusion criteria for TKR have changed, with ever younger, more active and heavier patients receiving TKR. Currently, wear debris related osteolysis and associated prosthetic loosening are major modes of failure for TKR implants of all designs. Initially, tibial components were cemented all polyethylene monoblock constructs. Subsequent long-term follow-up studies of these implants have demonstrated excellent durability in survivorship studies out to twenty years. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component was one of the main causes of failure in these implants. Cemented metal-backed nonmodular tibial components were subsequently introduced to allow for improved tibial load distribution and to protect osteoporotic bone. Long-term studies have established that many one-piece nonmodular tibial components have maintained excellent durability. Eventually, modularity between the polyethylene tibial component and the metal-backed tray was introduced in the mid-80s mainly to facilitate screw fixation for cementless implants. These designs also provided intraoperative versatility by allowing interchange of various polyethylene thicknesses, and to also aid the addition of stems and wedges. Other advantages included the reduction of inventory, and the potential for isolated tibial polyethylene exchanges as a simpler revision procedure. However, several studies have documented the high failure rate of isolated polyethylene exchange procedures, probably because technical problems related to the original components are left uncorrected. Since the late 1980s, the phenomena of polyethylene wear and osteolysis have been observed much more frequently when compared with earlier eras. The reasons for this increased prevalence of synovitis, progressive osteolysis, and severe polyethylene wear remain unclear, but there is no question that it was associated with the widespread use of both cementless and cemented modular tibial designs.

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

Modularity between the polyethylene tibial component and the metal-backed tray was introduced in the mid-1980s for versatility and to facilitate screw fixation for cementless implants. These designs allow exchange of various polyethylene thicknesses, and aid the addition of stems and wedges. Other advantages include the reduction of inventory, and the potential for isolated tibial polyethylene exchanges as a simpler revision procedure. Several studies have documented the high failure rate of isolated polyethylene exchange procedures, because technical problems related to the original components are left uncorrected. However, revision for wear is the simplest revision ever!

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

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can pose significant challenges. Successful reconstruction requires a systematic approach with the ultimate goal being a well fixed and balanced knee prosthesis. Careful preoperative planning is necessary for safe exposure, component removal, and appropriate management of bone loss during revision knee surgery.

Prior to surgery, the cause of failure must be understood. Revision TKA without a clear diagnosis has been shown to lead to predictable poor results. A careful history and physical examination for both intrinsic and extrinsic causes of knee pain need to be performed. An ESR and C-reactive protein should be obtained in every patient with a painful TKA and in cases of serologic abnormalities, a joint aspiration performed.

The integrity of the collateral ligaments and the degree of anticipated bone loss at the time of revision needs to be established. In cases of severe collateral ligament deficiency, the need for constrained or hinged knee implants should be anticipated. Plain radiographs are needed to evaluate present component position, loosening, and osteolysis. Oblique radiographs and advanced imaging (i.e. CT or MRI) have been shown to more accurately quantify the severity of lysis compared to standard radiographs. This careful assessment can help prepare for the need of special implants, stems, wedges, or augments.

Finally, patient risk stratification and medical co-management can help minimise complications following revision TKA. Optimization of potentially modifiable risk factors such as glycemic control, BMI, and preoperative hemoglobin can reduce perioperative morbidity and complications.

Following a careful in-depth preoperative plan for revision TKR, the first surgical step is adequate exposure. The following steps should be considered: 1.) Prior incisions: due to the medially based vascular supply to the skin and superficial tissues about the knee, consideration for use of the most LATERAL incision should be made. 2.) Avoid the use of flaps which may compromise the skin and soft tissue. 3.) Exposure options can be broken down into: PROXIMALLY based techniques: medial parapatella arthrotomy, establish medial and lateral gutters, eversion or subluxation of the patella, extension of arthrotomy proximal, if unable to “mobilise” patella, consider inside out lateral release, if still unable to mobilise: QUAD SNIP, in rare instances, connect lateral release with quad snip resulting in a V-Y quadplasty, may now turn down for excellent exposure.

DISTALLY based techniques: tibial tubercle osteotomy technique described by Whiteside, roughly 8 cm osteotomy segment with distal bevel, osteotomy must be at least 1.5–2 cm thick: too thin and risk of fracture increases, leave lateral soft tissues intact, greenstick” the lateral cortex with eversion of patella, closure with wires.

One of the arguments in favor of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the possibility of an easier revision. Especially if UKA is considered as an early intervention allowing bridging until total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is necessary at later age. If indeed primary TKA results can be obtained at time of revision, UKA becomes a real indication to postpone TKA until a later age.

For obtaining primary TKA results, a primary knee should be indicated for the revision. This is possible if the UKA cuts were conservative and within the resection level of a primary TKA. Furthermore bone loss should be contained and either be resected or easily solved with substituting techniques compatible with a primary TKA. Finally, the primary implant utilised should allow a full interchangeability of the tibial and femoral sizes. This allows a lower tibial cut during the revision, often leading to a smaller size but interchangeability avoids downsizing the femur and creating flexion gap instability.

If the UKA to TKA revision asks for stems, bone substitutions, joint line changes and more constraint, the primary result will not be obtained.

Therefore it is important to select a bone preserving UKA system that allows for conservative bone cuts and avoids deep keel preparations.

UKA to TKA with primary components and without gap mismatches or joint line changes leads to excellent outcome.

Liner exchange and bone grafting are commonly used in cases of wear and osteolysis around well fixed acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. However, in total knee revision, liner exchange is a more rare option.

In a multicenter study, we evaluated 22 TKAs that were revised with liner exchange and bone grafting for wear and osteolysis. All knees were well fixed and well aligned, and all components were modular tibial components. Osteolytic areas averaged 21.1 cm2 and 7.6 cm2 on AP projections of the femur and tibia, respectively, and averaged 21.6 cm2 and 5.7 cm2 on lateral projections of the femur and tibia, respectively, with the largest area being 54 cm2 on a single projection. Follow up was minimum 2 years and average 40 months. No knees were revised and radiographically, all osteolytic lesions showed evidence of complete or partial graft incorporation. In addition, there was no radiographic evidence of loosening at final follow up.

The Mayo Clinic evaluated 56 isolated tibial insert exchange revisions at their institution. Cases of loosening, infection, knee stiffness, or extensor mechanism problems were excluded. At minimum 2 year follow up (average 4.6 years), 14 knees (25%) required re-revision.

Baker et al evaluated 45 total knees undergoing isolated tibial insert exchange. At minimum 2 years, 4 knees (9%) required revision. Significant improvement was seen in clinical outcomes questionnaires, but only 58% had clinical successful global WOMAC scores.

In summary, isolated liner exchange in the revision total knee setting has variable results. It can be successful but it is indeed a rare option and should be limited to cases where the total knee arthroplasty is both well fixed and well aligned.

Metaphyseal bone loss, due to loosening, osteolysis or infection, is common with revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Small defects can be treated with screws and cement, bone graft, and non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Large defects can be treated with bulk structural allograft, impaction grafting, or highly porous metal cones. The AORI classification of bone loss in revision TKA is very helpful with preoperative planning. Type 1 defects do not require augments or graft—use revision components with stems. Type 2A defects should be treated with non-porous metal wedges or blocks. Type 2B and 3 defects require a bulk structural allograft or porous metal cone. Trabecular metal (TM) metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. Both femoral (full or partial) and tibial (full, stepped, or cone+plate) TM cones are available. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore joint line, and permit use of a short cemented stem. The technique for these cones involve preparing the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the remaining metaphysis. The interface is sealed with bone graft and putty. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the outer surface allow ingrowth and biologic fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared to cementing into deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the TM cone compared to allograft include: technically easier; biologic fixation; no resorption; and lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and intermediate-term follow-up. The author has reported the results of 33 TM cones (9 femoral, 24 tibial) implanted in 27 revision cases at 2–5.7 years follow-up. One knee (2 cones) was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. TM cones are now the preferred method for the reconstruction of large bone defects in revision TKA.

Patella fracture after total knee arthroplasty has a variety of etiologies and has been reported to occur with an incidence ranging from 3% to 21%. Heavy patients with full flexion are at greatest risk for sustaining patella fracture. Overstuffing the patellofemoral joint with an oversized femoral component, an anteriorised femoral component or a femoral component placed in excessive extension can also overload the underlying patella. A similar phenomenon may be seen with underrsection of the patella or use of a thick button. Excessive patellar resection can predispose to patellar fracture as well. It has been demonstrated that a residual patella thickness of less than 15 mm can substantially increase anterior patellar strain. Asymmetric patellar resection can also critically alter the mechanical strength of the patella making it vulnerable to failure.

Elevation of the tibiofemoral joint line, from excessive femoral resection and hastened by posterior cruciate ligament release, will result in a relative patella baja. This can cause early patellofemoral articulation, which may result in patellar impingement on the tibial insert in late flexion and ultimately predispose the patella to fracture.

Surgical approach and soft tissue dissection should be as atraumatic to the patellar blood supply as possible to preserve the superolateral geniculate artery when performing a lateral retinacular release.

The classification used by Goldberg, et al is helpful for planning appropriate intervention:

Type I fractures: Avulsion type fractures generally involving the periphery of the patella without involving the implant.

Type II fractures: Disrupt the cement-prosthesis interfaces of the quadriceps mechanism.

Type IIIA fractures: Involve the pole of the patella with disruption of the patella ligament.

Type IV fractures: Fracture dislocations of the patella. Non-operative treatment is preferred when fractures are non-displaced.

The moderator will lead a structured panel discussion that explores how to manage challenges commonly found in the multiply revised knee. Topics covered will include: (1) Exposure in the multiply operated knee (when to use quad snip, tibial tubercle osteotomy, other techniques); (2) Level of constraint (when to use posterior stabilised, constrained condylar, and hinge) and management of instability in multiply operated knees; (3) Management of bone loss in multiply operated knees (metal cones/sleeves vs. structural allograft vs. particulate graft); (4) Preferred management of infection in the multiply operated knee; (5) When is it time to convert to a salvage procedure (i.e. fusion, resection arthroplasty, amputation)?

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive and debilitating condition that is estimated to account for over 80% of the osteoarthritis burden. In cases of end-stage osteoarthritis, surgical intervention is the desired option, however, less severe cases may warrant the use of nonoperative modalities. Knee braces are becoming increasingly popular as an adjunct to the standard treatment and have shown promising results in reducing pain, improving function, and mitigating disease progression. Moreover, bracing has the added benefit of being able to include other noninvasive modalities as a means to augment recovery and delay the need for surgery. Prior studies have demonstrated that the medial compartment of the knee joint sustains 62% of loading forces during the stance phase of regular gait, whereas the lateral compartment receives the remaining 38%. It is hypothesised that this distribution of loading forces is why the medial joint compartment is more frequently damaged relative to the lateral compartment. Reduction of these stresses can be accomplished by the use of medial compartment unloader braces, which incorporate distraction forces and rotation with the purpose of increasing the medial joint space and providing pain relief. These devices have the potential to correct the characteristic gait changes associated with knee OA and enhance patients' functional status. Therefore, our main purpose is to assess the efficacy of the various types of knee braces used for the treatment of osteoarthritic knee pain as well as offer perspective regarding the use of knee braces at our institution.

The discussion of outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) requires proof that it can be done safely and effectively, and also begs the question of whether it can be performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) rather than a general hospital (which raises costs and is typically less efficient). Successful outpatient UKA requires carefully crafted algorithms/protocols, home support, preoperative planning and preparation, expectation management, risk stratification (not everyone is a candidate), perioperative pain management and buy-in from patients, support networks and the health care team. Relatively little data is available on the feasibility, safety and potential cost savings associated with this shift in care.

We evaluated the costs and short term outcomes and complications of 150 consecutive UKAs performed in an ASC compared to those done in a general hospital both on an inpatient and outpatient basis. Determination of the setting of the outpatient surgery was made based on geographic preference by the patients; otherwise choice of inpatient or outpatient surgery in the hospital was left to the discretion of the surgeon and was primarily based on the patients' comorbidity profile and circumstances of home help. Total direct facility costs were calculated, including institutional supplies and services, anesthesia services, implants, additional PACU medications and services required, and costs associated with operating room use. Only total cost was evaluated, as it is the most consistent cost variable amongst the two institutions evaluated. The mean total direct cost of UKA in a general community hospital with an overnight stay was 1.24 and 1.65 times greater than the cost of UKA performed at the same hospital or an ASC on an outpatient basis, respectively. The mean total direct cost of outpatient UKA in a general hospital was 1.33 times greater than the mean total cost of UKA performed in an ASC.

Semi-autonomous robotic technology has been introduced to optimise accuracy of implant positioning and soft tissue balance in UKA, with the expectation of resultant improvement in durability and implant survivorship. Currently, nearly 20% of UKA's in the U.S. are being performed with robotic assistance. It is anticipated that there will be substantial growth in market penetration over the next decade, projecting that nearly 37% of UKA's and 23% of TKA's will be performed with robotics in 10 years (Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry, March 5, 2015). First generation robotic technology improved substantially implant position compared to conventional methods; however, high capital costs, uncertainty regarding the value of advanced technologies, and the need for preoperative CT scans were barriers to broader adoption. Newer image-free robotic technology offers an alternative method for further optimizing implant positioning and soft tissue balance without the need for preoperative CT scans and with price points that make it suitable for use in an ASC. Currently, as a result of cost and other practical issues, <1% of first generation robotic technologies are being used in ASC's. Alternatively, more than 35% of second generation robotic systems are in use in ASC's for UKA, due to favorable pricing.

In conclusion, UKA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting in select patients. Additionally, we demonstrated a substantial cost savings when UKA is performed in an outpatient setting and care is shifted from a general community hospital to an ASC. Finally, robotics can be utilised to optimise accuracy of implant placement and soft tissue balance in UKA, and newer image-free robotic technology is cost effective for outpatient UKA.

No, Neutral mechanical axis has never been regarded as “necessary” to the success of TKA. In fact it has never been established as “ideal” with published data. Tibial femoral alignment after TKA is important, but it is also an issue that we do not understand completely. Neutral mechanical alignment refers to the relationship between the mechanical axes of the femur and tibia as shown on full length radiographs. “Neutral” means that these axes are collinear, i.e. that a line may be drawn from the center of the hip to the center of the ankle and it will intersect the center of the knee joint. The allure of the “straight line” has led many surgeons to regard a neutral mechanical axis as “perfection” for TKA surgery, but indeed, it is not the usual “normal” alignment for most human knees, nor is it the target for many conventional knee replacements. The “neutral mechanical axis” represents OVERCORRECTION for most knees. Moreland demonstrated in 1987 that few human knee joints are naturally aligned “in neutral”, but with the line from center of hip to center of ankle passing through the medial compartment. This tendency to relative varus mechanical axis in most human knees was corroborated by Bellemans et al in 2012. They substituted the word “constitutional varus” for what would otherwise be known as “normal alignment”.

In general, patients with pathologic or significant varus alignment, whose arthroplasties have been performed competently, are at greatest risk for failure by wear, osteolysis and loosening. This is the prototypical failure mechanism that pre-occupied the surgeons responsible for making knee arthroplasty successful in the 1970s. The first paper to identify varus TKA alignment and failure due to loosening was Lotke and Ecker in 1977. They worked from short radiographs and ushered in an era of careful attention to valgus TKA alignment-not neutral alignment. Correction of varus deformity combined with ligament balancing was probably responsible for making condylar type knee arthroplasties work durably in the early days.

Full length radiographs, used by Kennedy and White in 1987 to study alignment in unicompartmental arthroplasties, provide a more sophisticated method of evaluating knee alignment. These studies must be aligned with correct rotation to be valid. Computerised navigation was probably responsible for some surgeon's dedication to the neutral mechanical axis. The study of Parratte et al from Mayo has received much attention and argued that a neutral mechanical axis did NOT improve success rates at 15 years. It should be noted that these TKA's were expertly performed and even the less well-aligned cases were not “excessively” malaligned. This study does not state that alignment is irrelevant to the success of TKA, but rather that a range of alignments (with stability) might be expected to produce a durable arthroplasty.

Concurrent with these developments has been an interest in “under-correcting” knee deformity or allowing osseous anatomy (with compensation for cartilage loss) guide component position. In truth, it is inaccurate to describe conventional “align and balance” techniques as necessarily seeking a neutral mechanical axis. Most classical alignment techniques do, however, alter the angle of component position from the original articular surface angles and theoretically may not function as well with the native soft tissue environment. Surgeons who would align the TKA identically to the arthritic knee may credit previous generations with improving the technology such that this is a possibility. If every patient is to be aligned with this technique, however, this suggests that soft tissue pathology does not exist. As with all complex issues, glib answers are to be avoided and deep analysis is appropriate.

The optimal overall lower extremity and component alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently been questioned, yet the majority of studies demonstrate TKA positioning to effect the rate of implant loosening, polyethylene stresses, knee kinematics, and gait. Most commonly, extramedullary tibial and intramedullary femoral alignment guides are used to set coronal alignment in TKA, but these “conventional” methods have a limited degree of accuracy. The goal of obtaining more precise and accurate component positioning has led to the development of computer-assisted surgical (CAS) techniques. Although numerous comparative studies have shown significant improvements with the use of CAS techniques, concerns over increased operative times, large capital costs, and the learning curve associated with their use have limited their widespread acceptance.

Recently, handheld navigation devices have been introduced with the goal of providing the accuracy of large-console CAS systems in an easy-to-use manner. These devices rely on accelerometer-based navigation to set cutting guide alignment relative to the mechanical axes of the femur and tibia. Unlike most CAS systems, handheld navigation systems avoid the use of additional pin sites and reference arrays in the femur and tibia, do not require a large computer with an infrared camera, and thus eliminate intraoperative line of site issues between the camera and tracking arrays. Several investigations have demonstrated handheld navigation devices to provide the same degree of alignment accuracy as large-console CAS systems, thus improving the ability of a surgeon to achieve their intraoperative targets for coronal alignment during TKA.

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 intraoperatively and postoperatively. 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, intraoperative feedback regarding knee and component alignment along with 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 performed, the surgeon can assess the pressure changes as titrated soft tissue releases are performed.

A multicenter 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 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, plain film radiographs can be used along with intraoperative 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: 1.) Mark the centers of the femoral head and knee. 2.) Draw a line to connect the centerpoints. 3.) Mark the high points of the medial and lateral femoral condylar joint surfaces. 4.) Draw a line perpendicular to the mechanical axis that crosses the mark on the high point of the most prominent femoral condyle. This marks the position and alignment of the femoral implant surface. 5.) To measure the distal thickness of the femoral component and adding 10% to account for magnification of the radiograph, mark two points proximal to the two high points of the condyles and draw a line perpendicular through these two points to mark the resection line for the distal femoral surfaces. Less than the thickness of the implant will be resected from the least prominent condyle. 6.) Measure the thickness of bone to be resected and the distance between the bone surface and distal surface line. This distance represents the space between the distal femoral cutting guide and the joint surface of the deficient condyle. 7.) Insert a threaded pin into the bone surface with the measured distance protruding from the surface to set this position. 8.) Seat the distal femoral cutting guide against the protruding pin on the low side and against the surface of the femur on the high side. This aligns the distal femoral cutting guide perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the femur. 9.) 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. 10.) Make the anterior, posterior, and bevel cuts perpendicular to the AP axis. 11.) 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. 12.) 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.

Patients presenting with arthrosis following high tibial osteotomy (HTO) pose a technical challenge to the surgeon. Slight overcorrection during osteotomy sometimes results in persisting medial unicompartmental arthrosis, but with a valgus knee. A medial UKA is desirable, but will result in further valgus deformity, while a TKA in someone with deformity but intact cruciates may be a disappointment as it is technically challenging. The problem is similar to that of patients with a femoral malunion and arthrosis. The surgeon has to choose where to make the correction. An ‘all inside’ approach is perhaps the simplest. However, this often means extensive release of ligaments to enable ‘balancing’ of the joint, with significant compromise of the soft tissues and reduced range of motion as a consequence.

As patients having HTO in the first place are relatively high demand, we have explored a more conservative option, based upon our experience with patient matched guides.

We have been performing combined deformity correction and conservative arthroplasty for 5 years, using PSI developed in the MSk Lab. We have now adapted this approach to the failed HTO. By reversing the osteotomy, closing the opening wedge, or opening the closing wedge, we can restore the obliquity of the joint, and preserve the cruciate ligaments.

Technique: CT based plans are used, combined with static imaging and on occasion gait data. Planning software is then used to undertake the arthroplasty, and corrective osteotomy.

In the planning software, both tibial and femoral sides of the UKA are performed with minimal bone resection.

The tibial osteotomy is then reversed to restore joint line obliquity. The placing of osteotomy, and the angling and positioning in relation to the tibial component are crucial. This is more important in the opening of a closing wedge, where the bone but is close to the keel cut.

The tibial component is then readjusted to the final ‘Cartier’ angle.

Patient guides are then made. These include a tibial cutting guide which locates both the osteotomy and the arthroplasty.

At operation, the bone cuts for the arthroplasty are made first, so that these cuts are not performed on stressed bone. The cuts are not in the classical alignment as they are based upon deformed bone so the use of patient specific guides is a real help. The corrective osteotomy is then performed. If a closing wedge is being opened, then a further fibular osteotomy is needed, while the closing of an opening wedge is an easier undertaking.

Six cases of corrective osteotomy and partial knee replacement are presented. In all cases, the cruciates have been preserved, together with normal patello-femoral joints.

Patient satisfaction is high, because the deformity has been addressed, restoring body image. Gait characteristics are those of UKA, as the ACL has been preserved and joint line obliquity restored.

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 postoperative 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 postoperative and may require a revision.

When patients present at an early age with osteoarthritis of the hip, there is usually an underlying predisposing cause. In men, a common cause is femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This is evident as anterior neck osteophytes, with retroversion and varus alignment of the femoral head, most likely the result of subclinical slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

The resulting femoroacetabular cam impingement causes degenerative osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip, at an earlier age than primary OA. Patients present in their 40s and 50s with advanced arthritis, and are faced with the prospect of a total hip arthroplasty. Women may experience this as well, but may present with early hip arthritis as a result of subclinical dysplasia or pincer FAI more often than their male counterparts.

Hip resurfacing has several advantages over traditional total hip replacement for younger patients, especially men. These include bone preservation, less dislocation, thigh pain or leg length inequality, easier return to athletics, and easy revision on the femoral side. It is indicated in young, active patients.

The resurfacing procedure realigns the femoral head on the native and resurfaces the arthritic joint. Anterior neck osteoplasty is performed. Head retroversion is corrected. This restores deep flexion, and eliminates forced external rotation in flexion. Hip resurfacing can be done through either an anterior or posterior approach, although the anterior approach gives easier access to the anterior femoral neck, and preserves the blood supply to the head. This may help prevent femoral neck fractures and late head collapse.

Mastering the Art of Cemented Femoral Stem Fixation: Fixation of cemented femoral stems is reproducible and provides excellent early recovery of hip function in patients 60 to 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 multi-factorial; 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 to 150 microinches.

Cemented Primary Acetabulum: I am going to present a technique of cementing an all-poly socket. We have looked at our all-poly socket from 1992 to 1998 and the total number of hips are over 1,000, with a follow-up of 2 to 8 years. We have not revised a single socket for fixation failure.

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of bone at extra-skeletal sites. Genetic diseases, traumatic injuries, or severe burns can induce this pathological condition and can lead to severe immobility. While the mechanisms by which the bony lesions arise are not completely understood, intense inflammation associated with musculoskeletal injury and/or highly invasive orthopaedic surgery is thought to induce HO. The incidence of HO has been reported between 3% and 90% following total hip arthroplasty. While the vast majority of these cases are asymptomatic, some patients will present decreased range of motion and painful swelling around the affected joints leading to severe immobility. In severe cases, ectopic bone formation may be involved in implant failure, leading to costly and painful revision surgery. The effects of surgical-related intraoperative risk factors for the formation of HO can also play a role.

Prophylactic radiation therapy, and anti-inflammatory and biphosphonates agents have shown some promise in preventing HO, but their effects are mild to moderate at best and can be complicated with adverse effects. Irradiation around surgery could decrease the incidence of HO. However, high costs and the risk of soft tissue sarcoma inhibit the use of irradiation. Increased trials have demonstrated that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are effective for the prevention of HO. However, the risk of gastrointestinal side effects caused by NSAID has drawn the attention of surgeons. The effect of the selective COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of HO in patients undergoing THA. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP) such as BMP2 identified another novel druggable target, i.e., the remote application of apyrase (ATP hydrolyzing agent) in the burn site decreased HO formation and mitigated functional impairment later. The question is if apyrase can be safely administered through other, such as systematical, routes. While the systemic treatments have shown general efficacy and are used clinically, there may be great benefit obtained from more localised treatment or from more targeted inhibitors of osteogenesis or chondrogenesis.

In the surgical setting, prophylaxis for HO is regularly indicated due to the considerable risk of functional impairment. Heterotopic ossification is a well-known complication of total hip arthroplasty, especially when the direct lateral approach is used. Possible intraoperative risks are the size of incision, approach, duration of surgery and gender that can be associated with higher rates of HO or increase of the severity of HO. Like inflammation and tissue damage/ischemia are likely to be the key in the formation of HO, kindness to the soft tissues, tissue preserving surgery, pulse lavage to remove bone inducing factors and avoiding damage to all tissues should be erased as a comorbidity. Incision length, tissue dissection and subsequent localised trauma and ischemia, blood loss, anesthetic type and length of surgery may all contribute to the local inflammatory response. Data suggest that the surgeon may control the extent and nature of HO formation by limiting the incision length and if possible the length of the operation.

Currently resection of HO is generally suggested after complete maturation (between 14–18 months), since earlier intervention is thought to predispose to recurrence. Reliable indicators of maturation of HO are diminishing activity on serial bone scans and/or decreasing levels of alkaline phosphatase. Although usually asymptomatic, heterotopic bone formation can cause major disability consisting of pain and a decreased range of motion in up to 7% of patients undergoing THA. Patients benefit from early resection of the heterotopic ossification with a proper and reliable postoperative strategy to prevent recurrence of HO with clinical implications.

Ceramic bearing complications are rare, but can be a catastrophic complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Particulate debris from fractured ceramics can cause damage to the hip prosthesis and jeopardise subsequent revision THA. 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 type. In order to retain the implants, the components must be well fixed, appropriately positioned, and have tapers that are undamaged and can accept current femoral heads. Additionally, an extensile exposure and complete synovectomy are necessary to remove the sharp ceramic particulate debris. Finally, a ceramic ball head should be used to revise a fractured ceramic THA. Newer, alumina composite ceramic ball heads are harder, reliable, and more scratch resistant compared to metal ball heads. However, when retaining the femoral component, a ceramic ball head with a titanium sleeve should be used to prevent subsequent failures.

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

The surgical approach that is adequate for a primary total hip replacement may need to be modified to achieve a more extensile exposure as required for the revision procedure. A straightforward revision total hip replacement procedure can become quite complex when implant removal is attempted without adequate skill, instrumentation, or exposure. The most commonly used approaches in total hip replacement revision surgery are the transtrochanteric, posterolateral, and anterolateral. Although the effects of these approaches on the long-term clinical survival of the prosthetic composite are not completely clear, surgical approach does affect dislocation rates, trochanteric nonunion rates, and other indicators of clinical success.

Transtrochanteric Approach - Three variations of the transtrochanteric approach exist: A) The classic Charnley trochanteric approach was popularised by virtue of its use in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, therefore, was easily applied to revision THA. This approach allows excellent visualization of the lateral shaft of the femur, thus enhancing implant and cement removal. However, the classic Charnley approach is associated with a high incidence of trochanteric nonunion. Reattachment of the atrophied trochanteric fragment often requires adjunct fixation such as cables, hooks, or bolts. These devices can subsequently break, migrate, or generate particulate debris which, in turn, is capable of producing extensive granuloma. B) The trochanteric slide is accomplished by an anteromedial inclination of the osteotomy, thus providing a more stable interface for reattachment. The trochanteric slide offers the advantage of maintaining muscle continuity. The disadvantage of this technique is decreased visualization of the acetabulum. Adjunct fixation of the trochanter is also required with this approach. C) By creating a 6 cm to 12 cm distal extension to the trochanteric fragment, a large lateral window is developed which enhances both prosthesis and cement removal. Subsequently, trochanteric fixation is enhanced because the extended fragment increases the surface area available for fixation. Because the extended trochanteric osteotomy requires a larger bone resection, proximal femoral bone stock can be compromised. As a result, proximal prosthetic support with a tapered device can force the trochanteric fragment laterally, increasing the likelihood of nonunion. When an extended trochanteric osteotomy is used, the patient's postoperative physical therapy and rehabilitation course should be modified to protect the healing trochanteric fragment.

Posterolateral Surgical Approach is used commonly in revision THA. The technique is popular because it is used widely for endoprosthetic replacement in the treatment of subcapital fractures. Also, the posterolateral approach is quite popular for primary THA. This approach has the advantage of maintaining the integrity of the abductor mechanism. Although femoral exposure is adequate, acetabular exposure can be limited. Also, this approach is associated with an increased incidence of dislocation. Another concern is its close proximity to the sciatic nerve, thus predisposing the patient to the risk of nerve injury.

Anterolateral Surgical Approach has the advantage of improved visualization of the acetabulum and femur without the attending trochanteric complications and proximity to the sciatic nerve. This approach is associated with a low incidence of dislocation. However, the abductor muscle is divided or split and, therefore, abductor dysfunction can occur post-operatively. There also can be an increased incidence of heterotopic ossification, but it avoids the problem of trochanteric nonunion.