Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery.

The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned.

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained, and dual mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months).

One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery; one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (12.2%) underwent further procedures; two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 2.4 days, p<0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p<0.001 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium).

In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation.

Reoperation on the acetabular side of the total hip arthroplasty construct because of acetabular liner wear with or without extensive osteolysis is the most common reoperation performed in revision hip surgery today. The options of revision of the component or component retention, liner exchange (cemented or direct reinsertion) and bone grafting represent a classic surgeon dilemma of choices and compromises. CT scanning is helpful in determining the size and location of osteolytic lesions. My preference is to retain the existing shell when possible especially when there are large osteolytic lesions but where structural support is maintained. The advantages of complete revision are easy access to lytic lesions, ability to change component position and the ability to use contemporary designs with optimal bearing surfaces (for wear and dislocation prevention). The disadvantage is bone disruption including pelvic discontinuity with component removal (less so with Explant Systems) and difficult reconstructions due to excessive bone loss from the osteolytic defects (sometimes requiring cup cages). The advantage of component retention is that structural integrity of the pelvis is maintained and in general, a higher quality polyethylene is utilised. For large lesions I use windows to debride and bone graft the lesions. If the locking mechanism is inadequate, cementing a liner, including a constrained liner in some cases, that has been scored in a spider web configuration provides durable results at 5-year follow-up. The downside to liner exchange is potential instability. We immobilise all liner exchange patients postoperatively

Background. There are limited data on the complication rates and risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who have an acute wound dehiscence after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. From 2002 to 2018, 16,134 primary TKAs were performed at a single institution. Twenty-six patients (0.1%) had a traumatic wound dehiscence within the first 30 days. Mean age was 68, 38% were female, and mean BMI was 33 kg/m2. Median time to dehiscence was 13 days. The dehiscence resulted from a fall in 22 cases, including 4 in-hospital falls (3 with femoral nerve blocks), and sudden flexion after staple removal in 4 cases. The arthrotomy was disrupted in 58%, including a complete extensor mechanism disruption in 4 knees. A surgical debridement was performed within 48 hours in 19 of 26 knees. Two-thirds were discharged on antibiotic therapy. Results. Only two knees were complicated by PJI (cumulative incidence of 11% vs. 1% in all other primary TKAs, HR 6.5, p <0.01). One patient who developed a PJI was initially treated with a bedside closure in the ER rather than surgical debridement. The second patient had a complete extensor mechanism disruption at the time of dehiscence and was treated with surgical debridement, but did not receive a subsequent course of antibiotics. There were no PJIs in any of the cases that were treated with surgical debridement and a course of antibiotics. Three knees required reoperation (cumulative incidence of reoperation was 16% at 2 years, compared to 6% in all other primary TKAs, p=0.32) including 1 two-stage exchange for PJI, 1 irrigation and debridement with component retention for PJI, and 1 revision for tibial component aseptic loosening. Conclusion. Despite having a traumatic wound dehiscence, with nearly 60% resulting in arthrotomies that exposed implants, the risk of PJI was low but significantly higher than not having a traumatic arthrotomy. We recommend urgent surgical irrigation and debridement, inspection of arthrotomy integrity, and antibiotic treatment to decrease the risk of PJI. Summary. An acute, traumatic wound dehiscence with in the first 30 days after primary TKA results in a 11% risk of infection at 2 years

Vancouver A: If minimal displacement and prosthesis stable can treat nonoperatively. If displacement is unacceptable and/or osteolysis is present consider surgery. AL: Rare, avulsions from osteopenia and lysis. If large, displaced and include large portion of calcar-can destabilise stem and prompt femoral revision. AG: More common. Often secondary to lysis. Does not usually affect implant stability. Minimal displacement. Treat closed × 3 months. Revise later is needed to remove the particle generator, debride defects and bone graft. Displaced with good host bone stock. Consider early ORIF and bone grafting. Vancouver B:. B1: Rarely non-operative. ORIF with femoral component retention. Need to carefully identify stem fixation. B2's classified as B1's are doomed to fail. B1's correctly identified treated with plate, allograft struts or both. High union rates with component retention. B2: Femoral revision +/− strut allograft. Best results seen with patients revised with uncemented, extensively porous coated femoral stems. May use modular, fluted taper stems. B3: Proximal femoral replacement - Tumor prosthesis, Allograft Prosthetic Composite (APC). Uncemented femoral stem - Extensively porous coated, Fluted, tapered stem, Allograft strut. Vancouver C: Treat with standard fracture techniques. These fractures are away from the femoral prosthesis. Rarely nonoperative. Fixation options – Cerclage, Strut Allograft, Plate fixation, Retrograde IM nail, or a Combination thereof. Avoid stress risers between implants. Bypass (overlap) fixation. Consider allowing 2.5 cortical diameters between devices

Introduction. Acute infection following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a serious complication. It is commonly treated by irrigation and debridement (I&D) with component retention (exchange only the mobile parts of the joint - head and liner). However, the reported re-infection rate with the use of this approach remains high. We are reporting our experience in using single - stage revision arthroplasty in treating acute infection of THA. We hypothesized that the infection control rate after immediate early revision for acute infection of cementless implants is better than has been reported for I&D with exchange of mobile parts. Methods. From our infection arthroplasty database, we reviewed the outcome of 19 patients who had an acute infection (within 6 weeks) of cementless THA. Our management strategy includes I&D and single-stage (direct-exchange) revision arthroplasty followed by 6 weeks course of culture specific oral antibiotics. Results. Patients' average age was 64 year (39–85), M:F = 11:8. There were 13 primary and 6 revision cementless THAs. Average time from the index operation to the development of clinical symptoms of infection was 18 days (4–41). 14 patients (73.7%) were successfully treated with single stage revision strategy with no evidence of re-infection at 64.3 (32–89) months of follow up. 5 patients (26.3%) developed re-infection requiring two stage-revision surgery. Discussion. Our results showed that single stage revision strategy has a better outcome in treating acute infection after THR than the outcomes reported for I&D with component retention. When faced with acute infection of a cementless implant, early implant exchange prior to ingrowth should be considered

Implant selection in TKA remains highly variable. Surgeons consider pre-operative deformity, patient factors such as BMI and bone quality, surgical experience, retention or substitution for the PCL, type of articulation and polyethylene, cost, 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 TKAs have demonstrated that the most durable TKAs have been non-modular metal-backed tibial components, retention of the PCL, with a cemented all-polyethylene patellar component. Polymer wear must be addressed for long-term durability. One method for reducing polyethylene wear is eliminating modularity between a metal-backed tray and the articular bearing surface. This can be done with a metal-backed implant as with the IB-1, AGC, Vanguard Mono-lock, or with elimination of the metal backing via a one piece all-polyethylene tibial component. The all-polyethylene implants appear design and patient sensitive. We observed higher clinical failure rates in a flat-on-flat design. Other authors have observed improved survivorship with coronal dishing of the articular surfaces which centralises osseous stresses. All-polyethylene implants have promise in the future but require proven design and fixation design features

Arthrodesis is used most commonly as a salvage procedure for failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA). For successful arthrodesis, a stable fusion technique and acceptable limb mechanical alignment are needed. Although the use of intramedullary alignment rods might be helpful in terms of achieving an acceptable limb mechanical axis, fat embolism and intramedullary dissemination of an infection or reactivation of latent infection might occur in failed TKA cases. However, computer-assisted surgery allows precise cuts to be made without breaching medullary cavities. Here, the authors describe a case of knee arthrodesis performed by computer navigation and the Ilizarov method in a patient with a past history of infection. A 45-year-old man visited our hospital with failed total knee arthroplasy. Fortunately, even though infection was treated by debridement with component retention, mild heating was present over the knee, but ESR(erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and CRP(C-reactive protein) were within normal ranges. X-ray showed subsidence of the femoral component and a radiolucent line around the femoral component. Arthrodesis was planned for this patient due to disabling pain, a long-lasting severe functional deficit, failure of the primary TKA for ankylosed knee, and the patient’s poor economic status and his strong desire for arthrodesis. The computer navigation surgery system and the Ilizarov method were used for two reasons. The first reason was that the patient had a past history of infection. At pre-operative evaluation, even though ESR and CRP levels were within normal range, we could not completely rule out the possibility of latent infection due to suspicious findings such as long lasting disabling knee pain, mild heating over the knee, severe osteolytic radiographic changes around the femoral component. In that situation, inserting an IM rod to achieve acceptable mechanical alignment might have reactivated and disseminated a possible latent infection to the femoral or tibial medullary canals. The second reason was that we wanted to reduce the possibility of fat embolism by using computer navigation without instrumentation within the medullary canal. A CT-free, wireless computer navigation system was applied, with trackers fixed to the femur and tibia and no requirement for the use of an IM rod with component retention. Navigated femoral and tibial bone resections were then performed using Stryker software. The femoral resection was conducted at 0° of flexion to the sagittal axis, and the tibial resection at 7 ° of flexion to the sagittal axis. Arthrodesis was held in proper axial and rotational alignment with bone surfaces compressed together. Finally, knee arthrodesis was completed using the Ilizarov method. Based on our experience of the described case, we believe that arthrodesis for failed TKR, especially failure secondary to intraarticular infection, can be considered as another indication for computer navigation

Introduction. Single-stage resection and reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is of recent interest, yet outcomes may be skewed by selected populations with healthier patients and less virulent organisms. This study quantified the effectiveness of a contemporary, evidence-based and standardized two-stage treatment protocol in patients with THA PJI including chronically infected, poor hosts. Methods. Sixty-one consecutive two-stage resection and reimplantation THAs for PJI between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed in a prospectively collected registry database. Patients were categorized with McPherson's Staging System and infection was defined by MSIS criteria. Contemporary standardized protocols were adhered to including implant resection and meticulous surgical debridement, six-week intravenous antibiotics with a high-dose antibiotic spacer, a two-week drug holiday, and laboratory assessment of infection eradication prior to reimplantation. Extended antibiotics after reimplantation were not routinely used. Successful treatment was defined as reimplantation with component retention at minimum two-year follow-up. Results. After exclusions for confounds, 43 of 47 patients had obtained minimum two-year follow-up (mean 50.9 months). 54% were male with an average BMI of 31 kg/m2. 56% were chronically infected poor hosts (Stage III-B/C). Three patients required repeat debridement and/or spacer exchange prior to final reimplantation. Treatment success rate was 95% at two-year follow-up. Success did not vary based on patient sex, age, BMI, or multi-organism PJI (p ≥ 0.117). There were no failures in the early postoperative PJI group (stage I), and both failures occurred in the late chronic PJI group (stage III). Conclusion. Our success rate with the two-stage procedure equals or exceeds that of single-stage treatment, even in an unselected cohort of chronically infected poor hosts. More rigorous scientific comparative studies are warranted prior to indiscriminate adoption of the single-stage treatment approach for PJI in THA

Deep peri-prosthetic infection after partial or total knee arthroplasty is a disconcerting problem for patient and surgeon alike. The diagnosis of infection is sometimes obvious but frequently requires that the surgeon maintain a substantial index of suspicion for infection as the cause of pain or poor outcome after any joint arthroplasty. While surgical debridement with component retention is appropriate in a subgroup of patients with an acute peri-prosthetic infection, most delayed and chronic infections are best treated with component resection. With carefully selected patients and very aggressive debridement protocols some success has been demonstrated in Europe with single-stage exchange for infection. Most surgeons in North America, however, are unfamiliar with the very aggressive debridement techniques employed at European centers that promote single stage replant; and few surgeons in North America are currently comfortable in cementing a hinged total knee replacement in place for the typical infected TKA nor do they have the patience to re-prep and drape with an entirely new OR setup after debridement and prior to the insertion of the new implant − 2 steps that are often mentioned as important to the success of single stage exchange. The pre-eminent role of two-stage exchange as the definitive treatment was established over 30 years ago. Two-stage exchange remains the gold-standard in treatment with an established track record from multiple centers and with multiple different types of infecting organisms. Some of the historical problems with two-stage exchange, such as limited mobility during the interval stage, have been mitigated with the development of effective articulating spacer techniques. Further, the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and the possibility of fungal infection make two-stage exchange the best choice for the majority of patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection in 2017

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication affecting >1% of all total knee arthroplasties, with compromise in patient function and high rates of morbidity and mortality. There are also major socioeconomic implications. Diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical features, laboratory tests (including serum and articular samples) and diagnostic imaging. Once confirmed, prompt management is required to prevent propagation of the infection and further local damage. Non-operative measures include patient resuscitation, systemic antibiotics, and wound management, but operative intervention is usually required. Definitive surgical management requires open irrigation and debridement of the operative site, with or without exchange arthroplasty in either a single or two-stage approach. In all options, the patient's fitness, comorbidities and willingness for further surgery should be considered, and full intended benefits and complications openly discussed. Late infection almost invariably leads to implant removal but early infections and acute haematogenous infections can be managed with implant retention – the challenge is to retain the original implant, having eradicated infection and restored full function. Debridement with component retention: Open debridement is indicated for acute postoperative infections or acute haematogenous infections with previously well-functioning joints. To proceed with this management option the following criteria must be met: short duration of symptoms - ideally less than 2–3 weeks but up to 6; well-fixed and well-positioned prostheses; healthy surrounding soft tissues. Open debridement is therefore not an appropriate course of management if symptoms have been prolonged – greater than 6 weeks, if there is a poor soft tissue envelope and scarring, or if a revision arthroplasty would be more appropriate due to loosening or malposition of the implant. It is well documented in the literature that there is an inverse relationship between the duration of symptoms and the success of a debridement. It is thought that as the duration of symptoms increases, other factors such as patient comorbidities, soft tissue status and organism virulence play an increasingly important role in determining the outcome. There is a caveat. Based on our learning in the hip, when we see an acute infection where periprosthetic implants are used, it is much easier to use this time-limited opportunity to remove the implants and the associated biofilm and do a single-stage revision instead of just doing a debridement and a change of insert. This will clearly be experience and prosthesis-dependent but if the cementless implant is easy to remove, then it should be explanted. One critical aspect of this procedure is to use one set of instruments and drapes for the debridement and to then implant the new mobile parts and close using fresh drapes and clean instruments. Units that have gained expertise in single-stage revision will find this easier to do. After a debridement, irrigation, and change of insert, patients continue on intravenous antibiotics until appropriate cultures are available. Our multidisciplinary team and infectious disease experts then take over and will dictate antibiotic therapy thereafter. This is typically continued for a minimum of three months. Patients are monitored clinically, serologically, and particularly in relation to nutritional markers and general wellbeing. Antibiotics are stopped when the patients reach a stable level and are well in themselves. All patients are advised to re-present if they have an increase in pain or they feel unwell

Uncemented component retention with polyethylene (PE) liner and femoral head exchange is commonly used to treat periprosthetic osteolysis. The purpose was to determine long-term implant survivorship, risk factors for aseptic failures, clinical outcomes, and complications following PE liner and head exchange. We identified 116 hips in 110 patients treated with PE liner and head exchange for osteolysis from 1993 to 2004. The mean age was 58, 64 were women, and mean follow-up was 11 years. Implant survivorship free from all-cause revisions was 91% at 5-years, 81% at 10-years, and 69% at 15-years. Reasons for re-revision included subsequent conventional PE wear and osteolysis in 7 (6%), aseptic acetabular loosening in 5 (4%), and instability in 5 hips (4%). Mean time to revision for aseptic acetabular loosening was 4 years (range 1 – 7 years). Risk factors for aseptic acetabular loosening included acetabular zones of pre-revision osteolysis, percentage of cup involvement, and size of osteolytic defects. Absolute risk of acetabular loosening was 23% for three zones of osteolysis (Relative Risk (RR) 12, p<0.01), 40% if osteolysis involved more than half the cup circumference (RR 14, p<0.01), and 21% for defects greater than 600 mm. 2. (RR 11, p<0.01). Harris hip scores improved from 77 to 87 (p<0.01). The most common complication was dislocation (16%). These data quantify risk of subsequent component loosening when well fixed, uncemented implants are retained during operations for osteolysis, and may inform operative decisions regarding shell retention versus revision

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

Deep periprosthetic infection after hip or knee arthroplasty is a disconcerting problem for patient and surgeon alike. The diagnosis of infection is sometimes obvious but frequently requires that the surgeon maintain a substantial index of suspicion for infection as the cause of pain or poor outcome after any joint arthroplasty. While surgical debridement with component retention is appropriate in a subgroup of patients with an acute periprosthetic infection most delayed and chronic infections are best treated with component resection. The pre-eminent role of two-stage exchange as the definitive treatment was established over 30 years ago. Two-stage exchange remains the gold-standard in treatment with an established track record from multiple centers and with multiple different types of infecting organisms. Some of the historical problems with two-stage exchange, such as limited mobility during the interval stage, have been mitigated with the development of effective articulating spacer techniques. Further, the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and the possibility of fungal infection make two-stage exchange the best choice for the majority of patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection in 2015

Aim. Dissolvable antibiotic-loaded calcium sulphate beads have been utilized for management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and for aseptic revision arthroplasty. However, wound drainage and toxic reactive synovitis have been substantial problems in prior studies. Currently a commercially pure, physiologic product has been introduced that may reduce complications associated with this treatment modality. We aim to answer the question: does a commercially pure, physiologic version of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate beads reduce wound drainage and provide efficacious treatment for PJI and aseptic revision arthroplasty?. Method. Starting January 2010, 756 consecutive procedures were performed utilizing a set protocol of Vancomycin and Tobramycin antibiotics in commercially pure dissolvable antibiotic beads. There were 8 designated study groups:. Aseptic Revision TKA. N = 216. Aseptic Revision THA. N = 185. DECRA. *. TKA. N = 44. DECRA. *. THA. N = 16. 1. st. Stage Resection TKA. N = 103. 1. st. Stage Resection THA. N = 62. Reimplant TKA. N = 81. Reimplant THA. N = 49. *. DECRA = Debridement, modular Exchange, Component Retention, iv Antibiotics for acute PJI. Results. Wound drainage in the entire series was 4.2%. Wound drainage was generally seen in cases using higher bead volumes (≥30cc). The rate of heterotopic ossification was 1.6%. With bead volumes of ≥30cc, we did notice transient hypercalcemia in 12% of the study group (14% hips, 10% knees). The overall rate of infection failure was 2.5%. In the DECRA groups, reinfection failure rate was encouraging, measuring 9.1% in knees and 6.3% in hips. The non-DECRA group with the highest infection rate was Reimplant TKA (6.2%). Conclusions. We utilized a large series of commercially pure dissolvable antibiotic-loaded beads in a wide variety of clinical scenarios in patients with substantial comorbidities. Our rate of wound drainage, compared to prior studies utilizing gypsum products, was reasonably good. Additionally, our infection failure rates were encouraging. Over-stuffing knee joints with too many beads, in our clinical review, does affect wound drainage rates. By removing impurities from calcium sulfate, we do not see the substantial toxic synovial reaction compared to the traditional gypsum-washed products. We feel that commercially pure, physiologic antibiotic-loaded dissolvable beads are an acceptable delivery tool for local antibiotic delivery in aseptic and septic revision joint arthroplasty of the hip and knee. In our opinion, further study is warranted. We advocate future randomized studies to examine the potential of improving outcomes of PJI and aseptic revision arthroplasty

Infection is a potentially disastrous complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although advances in surgical technique and antibiotic prophylaxis have reduced the incidence of infection to approximately 1% in primary TKA, there is still a substantial number of patients. Treatment options include antibiotic suppression, irrigation and debridement with component retention (with or without polyethylene exchange), one-stage or two-stage revision, resection arthroplasty and rarely arthrodesis or amputation. Salvage of prostheses has always been associated with low rates of success. It was reported a success rate of 27% for open debridement. It is suitable for selective cases where infection occurs within the first 4–6 weeks of primary TKA or in the setting of acute hematogenous gram positive infection with stable implants. With the advances in arthroscopic technique, arthroscopy after TKA has become an accepted method to assess and manage the complications of TKA. Arthroscopic treatment for infected TKA was reported and the successful rate was similar or better than open debridement in selected situations. We used arthroscopic debridement combined with continuous antibiotic irrigation and suction to treat acute presentation of infected TKA with acceptable result. From 2010∼2013, we has performed arthroscopic debridement and continuous antibiotic irrigation system for seven patients with infected TKA. All of the seven patients had no open wounds nor sinuses and no radiological evidence of prosthetic instability or evidence of osteomyelitis. Most of the surgical intervention was performed within two weeks from the onset of symptoms. Arthroscopic debridement was performed with a shaver using a multiportal technique (anterolateral, anteromedial, superolateral, superomedial, posterolateral, posteromedial) and a continuous antibiotic irrigation system was used to dilutes concentration of the causative microorganism and keep high local bactericidal concentration of antibiotics. We evaluated the efficacy by using follow up of the C-reactve protein (CRP) test, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test and physical examination. Successful treatment was defined as prosthesis retention without recurrent infection by the final follow-up. Six of seven infected TKA were cured without recurrence at a mean follow-up of 23 months (range, 6–41 months). One case with rheumatoid arthritis under long-term steroid therapy had recurred after episode of upper respiratory tract infection for 3 times. However, the infection was controlled by arthroscopic debridement and retention of the prosthesis was achieved. We emphasize the importance of posterior portal to ensure adequate arthroscopic debridement. It is imperative to make early diagnosis and treatment for infected TKA. We should make more effort to preserve the prosthesis in acute infection(within 2 weeks). With the advantage of minimal morbidity, arthroscopic treatement shoulder be an alternative to open debridement

Containment of bone defects is one of the main requisites for using the bone impaction grafting technique. When the proximal femur is absent, circumferential meshes in combination with impacted bone allografts and long stems could be an alternative method. However, the initial stability of this femoral stems has not been evaluated and we were not able to find any series in the literature that includes a group of patients treated with this method. This study has two purposes: one is to analyze the initial resistance in vitro to axial and rotational forces of a fresh frozen bovine model with a complete loss of the proximal femur reconstructed with a circumferential metal mesh containing impacted bone allografts and a long polished cemented stem. The second is to present the short-term clinical and radiographic evaluation in a group of patients with massive bone loss of the proximal femur that were reconstructed with this method. Four femurs with an 8 cm proximal bone defect were reconstructed with a circumferential metal mesh, impacted bone grafts and a cemented long stem (group 1). Results were compared with 4 cases presenting an intact proximal femur in which the same stem was implanted (group 2). Thirteen patients with complete massive proximal femoral bone defects (average 12 cm long) were reconstructed with a circumferential metal mesh, impacted bone allografts and a long cemented stem (average 217 cm long). Failure mode was characterized by subsidence under axial load in group one at 617 kg and by periprosthetic fracture in control group at 1335 kg. Under rotational load, group 1 femurs failed at the cement interface at an average of 79 kg and the intact femurs presented a fracture at an average of 260 kg. At 25 months follow-up, 6 patients had to be reoperated. We observed 2 fractures of the metal mesh at 31 and 48 months in cases reconstructed with a Charnley stem that did not by pass the mesh. Three patients presented one dislocation that needed open reduction in 2 cases. Two acute deep infections were treated with debridement, antibiotics and component retention. This model presented a 50% resistance to axial load and 30% resistance to rotational load compared to an intact femur with the same implant. However, this resistance is by far higher than the physiologic load occurring in a normal femur during gait. Although the incidence of complications in this patients was high, this was related to the complexity of the cases. Failures of the system were not observed except in the 2 cases presenting technical defects. This experimental initial stability and early clinical as well as radiographic results encourage the use of circumferential meshes to contain impacted bone allografts combined with long cemented stems in complex revision hip surgery

Introduction. The risk of hip dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty is up to 20% following surgery for periprosthetic fractures. A technique was developed by the senior authors, involving a transtrochanteric osteotomy and superior capsulotomy to attempt to minimise this risk(1). Methods. This prospective study examines a cohort of 40 patients undergoing this novel technique, which involves extending the fracture proximally to the tip of the greater trochanter. This is then extended into the soft tissues in the mid lateral plane as a split of the glutei and a minimally superior capsulotomy (preserving the anterior and posterior capsule). This allows for revision of the femoral component, and retention of the socket and liner. The outcomes of interest to the authors were dislocation rates, clinical outcome measured using the Oxford hip score. These were assessed along with X-ray imaging at 1, 2 and 5-year intervals to confirm fracture union and measure stem subsidence. Results. Patients averaged 80 years of age, with a higher ratio of females (3:2). There were no cases of hip joint dislocations. Two patients (5%) underwent subsequent revision hip arthroplasty within the first 12 months of initial revision. Femoral stem subsidence at 1 year averaged 5.9 mm. All fractures showed radiological evidence of union. The Oxford hip score was fair, averaging 31/48 by 1 year post-op, and then plateaued at 32.8/48 at 2 years post-op. Conclusion. 5 year follow-up of this novel operative technique in revision arthroplasty of Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures has confirmed the benefits, with no cases of hip dislocation, along with overall satisfactory patient clinical outcomes

Aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term results of the posterior cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis. Materials: 89 consecutive total knee replacements in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were performed. All knees had cemented components with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament followed in prospective fashion. Assessment was done by Knee Society clinical and radiographic evaluation systems. Survivorship analysis was done using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The average follow-up was 9.8 years. All living patients had a minimum of 10 years (10–20) follow up. The average age at surgery was 61 years. Revision was carried out in 4 knees in RA (4.4%). 89% were pain free and 93% were rated excellent as per the Knee Score. 90% of the knees were stable. The survivorship analysis showed the implant survival at 20 years was 94% (85 to 97%). Conclusions: With 94% survival rate and 93% excellent results in this long-term study conþrms the safe use of a posterior cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty in a patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term results of the posterior cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients. Material and Methods: 943 consecutive total knee replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were performed. All knees had cemented components with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament followed in prospective fashion. Assessment was done by Knee Society clinical and radiographic evaluation systems. Survivorship analysis was done using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The average follow-up was 10.8 years. All living patients had a minimum of 10 years (10–24) follow up. The average age at surgery was 71 years. Revision was carried out in 20 knees in OA (2.1%). 87% were pain free and 91% were rated excellent as per the Knee Score. The survivorship analysis showed the implant survival at 15 years 96%, 20 years was 88% and 24 years was 82 (63 to 92%). The age at surgery, gender and design of prosthesis were not significant for survivorship analysis. Conclusions: Total knee arthroplasty provides an excellent survivorship analysis and clinical results at 24 years and seems to have better results than published hip studies