Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 67
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 5 Supple B | Pages 74 - 81
1 May 2024
Callary SA Broekhuis D Barends J Ramasamy B Nelissen RGHH Solomon LB Kaptein BL

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical models of two frequently used techniques for reconstructing severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) – the Trabecular Metal Acetabular Revision System (TMARS) and custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) – using virtual modelling.

Methods

Pre- and postoperative CT scans from ten patients who underwent revision with the TMARS for a Paprosky IIIB acetabular defect with pelvic discontinuity were retrospectively collated. Computer models of a CTAC implant were designed from the preoperative CT scans of these patients. Computer models of the TMARS reconstruction were segmented from postoperative CT scans using a semi-automated method. The amount of bone removed, the implant-bone apposition that was achieved, and the restoration of the centre of rotation of the hip were compared between all the actual TMARS and the virtual CTAC implants.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 8 | Pages 488 - 497
10 Aug 2021
Cleemann R Sorensen M West A Soballe K Bechtold JE Baas J

Aims

We wanted to evaluate the effects of a bone anabolic agent (bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2)) on an anti-catabolic background (systemic or local zoledronate) on fixation of allografted revision implants.

Methods

An established allografted revision protocol was implemented bilaterally into the stifle joints of 24 canines. At revision surgery, each animal received one BMP-2 (5 µg) functionalized implant, and one raw implant. One group (12 animals) received bone graft impregnated with zoledronate (0.005 mg/ml) before impaction. The other group (12 animals) received untreated bone graft and systemic zoledronate (0.1 mg/kg) ten and 20 days after revision surgery. Animals were observed for an additional four weeks before euthanasia.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1499 - 1454
1 Nov 2018
Green CM Buckley SC Hamer AJ Kerry RM Harrison TP

Aims

The management of acetabular defects at the time of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is a challenge. This study presents the results of a long-term follow-up study of the use of irradiated allograft bone in acetabular reconstruction.

Patients and Methods

Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients underwent acetabular reconstruction for aseptic loosening, using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, and morsellized femoral heads and a cemented acetabular component. A total of 55 men and 55 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (26 to 97) at the time of revision surgery are included in this study.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 50 - 50
1 Apr 2017
Parvizi J
Full Access

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 remodelling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. 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 the stem tip, introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal, impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive 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, and 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. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weightbearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. 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 as aseptic loosening being above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported about 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 especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1611 - 1619
1 Dec 2016
Wilson MJ Hook S Whitehouse SL Timperley AJ Gie GA

Aims

Femoral impaction bone grafting was first developed in 1987 using morselised cancellous bone graft impacted into the femoral canal in combination with a cemented, tapered, polished stem. We describe the evolution of this technique and instrumentation since that time.

Patients and Methods

Between 1987 and 2005, 705 revision total hip arthroplasties (56 bilateral) were performed with femoral impaction grafting using a cemented femoral stem. All surviving patients were prospectively followed for a mean of 14.7 years (9.8 to 28.3) with no loss to follow-up. By the time of the final review, 404 patients had died.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_22 | Pages 63 - 63
1 Dec 2016
Gross A
Full Access

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


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_17 | Pages 95 - 95
1 Nov 2016
Gehrke T
Full Access

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Cemented THA has become an extremely successful operation with excellent long-term results. Although showing decreasing popularity in North America, it always remained a popular choice for the elderly patients in Europe and other parts of the world. Various older and recent studies presented excellent long-term results, for cemented fixation of the cup as well as the stem. Besides optimal component orientation, a proper cementing technique is of major importance to assure longevity of implant fixation. Consequently a meticulous bone bed preparation assures the mechanical interlock between the implant component, cement and the final bone bed. Pre-operative steps as proper implant sizing/ templating, ensuring an adequate cement mantle thickness, and hypotensive anaesthesia, minimizing bleeding at the bone cement interface, are of major importance. Additionally, femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration due to incorporation and remodeling of the allograft bone by the host skeleton. Historically, it has been first performed and described in Exeter in 1987, utilizing a cemented tapered polished stem in combination with morselised fresh frozen bone grafts. The technique was refined by the development of designated instruments, which have been implemented by the Nijmegen group from Holland. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta- and diaphysis leading to a wide or so called “drain pipe” femora, are optimal indications for this technique, especially in young patients. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. The cement mantle is of importance, as it acts as the distributor of force between the stem and bone graft and seals the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favorable results. Originally the technique is described with a polished stem. We use standard brushed stems with comparable results. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to cold flow within the cement mantle, however, could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Impaction grafting might technically be more challenging and more time consuming than cement-free distal fixation techniques. It, however, enables a reliable restoration of bone stock which might especially become important in further revision scenarios in younger patients


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 100 - 100
1 Nov 2015
Haddad F
Full Access

Introduction. The reconstructive hip surgeon is commonly faced with complex cases where severe bone loss makes conventional revision techniques difficult or impossible. This problem is likely to increase in future, as there is a good correlation between the degree of bone loss seen and number of previous total hip operations. In such situations, one alternative is the use impaction allografting with cement. This has captured the attention of the orthopaedic community because of its potential for reconstituting femoral bone stock. History. The first clinical reports of impaction allografting on the femoral side were in relation to revision with cementless stems. The use of morselised bone with cement on the femoral side was first reported by the Exeter group. Biology. The great enthusiasm with which this technique has been received is related to its biological potential to increase bone stock. The rapid revascularization, incorporation and remodelling of morselised compacted cancellous allograft differs dramatically from structural allografting where bone ingrowth usually is limited to 2–3 mm. Histological evidence for bony reconstitution has been presented from postmortem retrievals, and from biopsies at the time of trochanteric wire removal. Impaction allografting, performed with great attention to detail using appropriate equipment, represents an exciting reconstructive solution for contained femoral defects. Its role in larger and combined defects remains open to scrutiny. A number of technical issues with regards to allograft preparation and prosthetic design have been resolved over the past decade. The necessary intra-operative precautions are now appreciated, and the high complication rates seen in some centers have been explained in simple terms. Careful observation and cautious optimism are necessary as further refinements may well improve the predictability of the clinical results and expand the indications for this important addition to the armamentarium of the revision surgeon. The technique of impaction allografting of the femur has great potential, and is here to stay as a reconstructive solution to the deficient proximal femur in revision hip arthroplasty. Although many questions remain unanswered, the capacity for impaction allografting to act as a truly biologic augmentation of the proximal femur makes this technique the modern bridge from revision arthroplasty to reconstructive hip surgery


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1338 - 1344
1 Oct 2015
te Stroet MAJ Keurentjes JC Rijnen WHC Gardeniers JWM Verdonschot N Slooff TJJH Schreurs BW

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82).

We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision.

A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99).

The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 54 - 54
1 Feb 2015
Haddad F
Full Access

Introduction:. The reconstructive hip surgeon is commonly faced with complex cases where severe bone loss makes conventional revision techniques difficult or impossible. This problem is likely to increase in future, as there is a good correlation between the degree of bone loss seen and number of previous total hip operations. In such situations, one alternative is the use of impaction allografting with cement. History:. The first clinical reports of impaction allografting on the femoral side were in relation to revision with cementless stems. The use of morselised bone with cement on the femoral side was first reported by the Exeter group. Biology:. The great enthusiasm with which this technique has been received is related to its biological potential to increase bone stock. The rapid revascularization, incorporation and remodeling of morselised compacted cancellous allograft differs dramatically from structural allografting where bone ingrowth usually is limited to 2mm to 3mm. Histological evidence for bony reconstitution has been presented from postmortem retrievals, and from biopsies at the time of trochanteric wire removal. Type of bone:. The size of the bone chips used as morselised allograft is important. The graft behaves as a friable aggregate and its resistance to complex forces depends on grading, normal load and compaction. It is recommended that particles of 3–5mm in diameter make up the bulk of the graft. A bone slurry, such as that produced by blunted bone mills, or by the use of acetabular reamers or high speed burrs would not give satisfactory stability. A wide range of particle sizes is recommended in order to achieve the greatest stability. The cement mantle:. A satisfactory cement mantle is required to ensure the longevity of any cemented stem. The primary determinant of cement mantle thickness is the differential between the graft impactors and the final stem. All femoral impaction systems require careful design to achieve a cement mantle that is uninterrupted in its length and adequate in its thickness. Stem design:. The technique of impaction allografting on the femoral side was first and most successfully reported using a highly polished stem with a double tapered geometry and no collar. It is thought to be ideal for this technique as it can subside within the cement mantle, thus generating hoop stresses on the cement which creeps, potentially maintaining physiological loads on the supporting bone. The extension of this technique to other stems has led to some controversy. Confounding factors such as surgical technique, the impaction system available, the type and size of allograft bone used, and the extent of the preoperative bone loss, will undoubtedly continue to influence such comparisons. It appears that the exact stem configuration may not be as critical as its surface finish, the amount of graft impaction possible and the cement mantle produced. The introduction of longer stems and impactors in the last decade has undoubtedly further increased the scope of this technique. Conclusion:. Impaction allografting is the only technique currently available that reverses the loss of bone stock seen in a revision hip arthroplasty. Moreover, this technique does not sacrifice host tissue, and could facilitate further surgery. Impaction allografting, performed with great attention to detail using appropriate equipment, represents an exciting reconstructive solution for contained femoral defects


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 48 - 55
1 Nov 2014
Yasen AT Haddad FS

We are currently facing an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures around the hip. They may occur either during surgery or post-operatively. Although the acetabulum may be involved, the femur is most commonly affected. We are being presented with new, difficult fracture patterns around cemented and cementless implants, and we face the challenge of an elderly population who may have grossly deficient bone and may struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. The correct surgical management of these fractures is challenging. This article will review the current choices of implants and techniques available to deal with periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):48–55.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 93 - 93
1 Jul 2014
Haddad F
Full Access

Introduction. The reconstructive hip surgeon is commonly faced with complex cases where severe bone loss makes conventional revision techniques difficult or impossible. This problem is likely to increase in future, as there is a good correlation between the degree of bone loss seen and number of previous total hip operations. In such situations, one alternative is the use impaction allografting with cement. This has captured the attention of the orthopaedic community because of its potential for reconstituting femoral bone stock. History. The first clinical reports of impaction allografting on the femoral side were in relation to revision with cementless stems. The use of morselised bone with cement on the femoral side was first reported by the Exeter group. Biology. The great enthusiasm with which this technique has been received is related to its biological potential to increase bone stock. The rapid revascularisation, incorporation and remodelling of morselised compacted cancellous allograft differs dramatically from structural allografting where bone ingrowth usually is limited to 2–3mm. Histological evidence for bony reconstitution has been presented from postmortem retrievals, and from biopsies at the time of trochanteric wire removal. The Technique of Impaction Allografting. Type of bone: The size of the bone chips used as morselised allograft is important. The graft behaves as a friable aggregate and its resistance to complex forces depends on grading, normal load and compaction. It is recommended that particles of 3–5mm in diameter make up the bulk of the graft. A bone slurry, such as that produced by blunted bone mills, or by the use of acetabular reamers or high speed burrs would not give satisfactory stability. A wide range of particles sizes is recommended in order to achieve the greatest stability. Future considerations will include the potential for either adding biomaterials to the allograft, or ultimately substituting it completely. The cement mantle: A satisfactory cement mantle is required to ensure the longevity of any cemented stem. The primary determinant of cement mantle thickness is the differential between the graft impactors and the final stem. All femoral impaction systems require careful design to achieve a cement mantle that is uninterrupted in its length and adequate in its thickness. Stem design: The technique of impaction allografting on the femoral side was first and most successfully reported using a highly polished stem with a double tapered geometry and no collar. It is thought to be ideal for this technique as it can subside within the cement mantle, thus generating hoop stresses on the cement which creeps, potentially maintaining physiological loads on the supporting bone. The extension of this technique to other stems has led to some controversy. Confounding factors such as surgical technique, the impaction system available, the type and size of allograft bone used, and the extent of the pre-operative bone loss, will undoubtedly continue to influence such comparisons. It appears that the exact stem configuration may not be as critical as its surface finish, the amount of graft impaction possible and the cement mantle produced. The introduction of longer stems and impactors in the last decade has undoubtedly further increased the scope of this technique. Conclusion. Impaction allografting is the only technique currently available that reverses the loss of bone stock seen in a revision hip arthroplasty. Moreover, this technique does not sacrifice host tissue, and could facilitate further surgery


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 53 - 53
1 May 2014
Haddad F
Full Access

The reconstructive hip surgeon is commonly faced with complex cases where severe bone loss makes conventional revision techniques difficult or impossible. This problem is likely to increase in future, as there is a good correlation between the degree of bone loss seen and number of previous total hip operations. In such situations, one alternative is the use impaction allografting with cement. This has captured the attention of the orthopaedic community because of its potential for reconstituting femoral bone stock. The first clinical reports of impaction allografting on the femoral side were in relation to revision with cementless stems. The use of morsellised bone with cement on the femoral side was first reported by the Exeter group. The great enthusiasm with which this technique has been received is related to its biological potential to increase bone stock. The rapid revascularisation, incorporation and remodelling of morsellised compacted cancellous allograft differs dramatically from structural allografting where bone ingrowth usually is limited to 2–3mm. Histological evidence for bony reconstitution has been presented from postmortem retrievals, and from biopsies at the time of trochanteric wire removal. The size of the bone chips used as morsellised allograft is important. The graft behaves as a friable aggregate and its resistance to complex forces depends on grading, normal load and compaction. It is recommended that particles of 3–5mm in diameter make up the bulk of the graft. A bone slurry, such as that produced by blunted bone mills, or by the use of acetabular reamers or high speed burrs would not give satisfactory stability. A wide range of particle sizes is recommended in order to achieve the greatest stability. Future considerations will include the potential for either adding biomaterials to the allograft, or ultimately substituting it completely. A satisfactory cement mantle is required to ensure the longevity of any cemented stem. The primary determinant of cement mantle thickness is the differential between the graft impactors and the final stem. All femoral impaction systems require careful design to achieve a cement mantle that is uninterrupted in its length and adequate in its thickness. The technique of impaction allografting on the femoral side was first and most successfully reported using a highly polished stem with a double tapered geometry and no collar. It is thought to be ideal for this technique as it can subside within the cement mantle, thus generating hoop stresses on the cement which creeps, potentially maintaining physiological loads on the supporting bone. The extension of this technique to other stems has led to some controversy. Confounding factors such as surgical technique, the impaction system available, the type and size of allograft bone used, and the extent of the pre-operative bone loss, will undoubtedly continue to influence such comparisons. It appears that the exact stem configuration may not be as critical as its surface finish, the amount of graft impaction possible and the cement mantle produced. Impaction allografting is the only technique currently available that reverses the loss of bone stock seen in a revision hip arthroplasty. Moreover, this technique does not sacrifice host tissue, and could facilitate further surgery. Impaction allografting, performed with great attention to detail using appropriate equipment, represents an exciting reconstructive solution for contained femoral defects. Its role in larger and combined defects remains open to scrutiny. Careful observation and cautious optimism are necessary as further refinements may well improve the predictability of the clinical results and expand the indications for this important addition to the armamentarium of the revision surgeon


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 6 | Pages 34 - 36
1 Dec 2013

The December 2013 Research Roundup360 looks at: Inflammation implicated in FAI; Ponseti and effective teaching; Unicompartmental knee design and tibial strain; Bisphosphonates and fracture healing; Antibiosis in cement; Zoledronic acid improves primary stability in revision?; Osteoporotic fractures revisited; and electroarthrography for monitoring of cartilage degeneration


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 11_Supple_A | Pages 92 - 94
1 Nov 2013
Gehrke T Gebauer M Kendoff D

Femoral revision after cemented total hip replacement (THR) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem.

Femoral impaction allografting has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur. In combination with a primary cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for femoral bone restoration through incorporation and remodelling of the impacted morsellized bone graft by the host skeleton. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta-physis and diaphysis leading to a wide femoral shaft, are ideal indications for this technique. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 1 mm to 2 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a prosthesis dummy of the same dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is driven into the femur to ensure that the chips are very firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is cemented into the neo-medullary canal using bone cement.

To date several studies have shown favourable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported in independent clinical centres worldwide.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:92–4.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_22 | Pages 53 - 53
1 May 2013
Gehrke T
Full Access

Femoral revision in cemented THA might include some technical difficulties, based on the loss of bone stock and cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone stock, inadequate fixation, cortical perforation or consequent fractures. Femoral impaction grafting, in combination with a primary cemented stem, allows for femoral bone restoration by incorporating and remodeling the allograft bone of the host skeleton. Historically, this was first performed and described in Exeter in 1987. Indications might include all femoral revisions with bone stock loss, while the Endo-Clinic experience is mainly based on revision of cemented stems. Nowadays our main indication is the Paprosky Type IIIb and Type IV. Contraindications are mainly: septical revisions, extensive circumferential cortical bone loss and noncompliance of the patient. Generally the technique creates a new endosteal surface to host the cemented stem by reconstruction of the cavitary defects with impacted morselised bone graft. This achieves primary stability and restoration of the bone stock. It has been shown, that fresh frozen allograft shows superior mechanical stability than freeze-dried allografts. Technical steps include: . –. removal of failed stem and all cement rests. –. reconstruction of segmental bone defects with metal mesh (containment). –. preparation of fresh frozen femoral head allografts with bone mill. –. optimal bone chip diameter 2 to 5 mm, larger chips for the calcar area (6–8 mm). –. insertion of an intramedullary plug including central wire, 2 cm distal the stem tip. –. introduction of bone chips from proximal to distal. –. impaction started by distal impactors over central wire, then progressive larger impactors proximal. –. insertion of a stem „dummy“ as proximal impactor and space filler. –. removal of central wire. –. retrograde insertion of bone cement (0.5 Gentamycin) with small nozzle syringe, including pressurisation. –. 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 while sealing the stem. A cement mantle of at least 2 mm has shown favourable results. Post-operative care includes usually touch down weight bearing for 6–8 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks of gradually increased weightbearing with a total of 12 weeks on crutches. Relevant complications include mainly femoral fractures due to the hardly impacted allograft bone. Subsidence of tapered polished implants might be related to coldflow within the cement mantle, however, it could also be related to micro cement mantle fractures, leading to early failure. Subsidence should be less than 5 mm. Survivorship with a defined endpoint as any femoral revision after 10-year follow-up has been reported by the Exeter group at over 90%. While survivorship for revision defined as aseptic loosening is even greater at above 98%. Within the last years various other authors and institutions reported similar excellent survivorships, above 90%. In addition a long-term follow-up by the Swedish arthroplasty registry in more than 1180 patients reported a cumulative survival rate of 94% after 15 years and 99% with the endpoint aseptic loosening. Impaction grafting is technically more challenging and more time consuming than cement free distal fixation techniques. However, it enables a reliable restoration of bone stock


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVI | Pages 27 - 27
1 Aug 2012
Reissis Y Garcia E Hua J Blunn G
Full Access

Impaction allograft using cement is commonly used in revision surgery for filling bone defects and provides a load bearing interface. However, the variable regeneration of new bone within the defect makes clinical results inconsistent. Previous studies showed that addition of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) seeded on allograft can enhance bone formation in the defect site. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that heat generated during cement polymerization will not affect viability of the human MSCs. The temperatures and durations were taken from previous studies that recorded the maximum temperature generated at the bone-cement interface. Temperatures of below 30 degrees Celsius to over 70 degrees Celsius have been detected and the duration of elevated temperature varies from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. In this study the viability of MSCs cultured at different temperatures was assessed. Ten groups were studied with three repeats (Table 1). A control group in which cells were cultures normally was used. Culture medium was heated to the required temperature and added to the cells for the required duration. The metabolism of MSCs was measured using the alamar Blue assay, cell viability was analysed using Trypan Blue and cell apoptosis and necrosis were tested using Annexin V and Propidium Iodide staining. Results showed that cell metabolism was not affected with temperatures up to 48 degrees Celsius for periods of 150s, while cells in the 58 degrees Celsius group eventually died (Fig. 1). Similar results were shown in Trypan Blue analysis (Fig. 2). When comparing the group of cells heated to 48 degrees Celsius for 150s with the control group for apoptosis and necrosis, no significant difference was observed. The study suggests that human MSCs seeded to allograft can be exposed to temperatures up to 48 degrees Celsius for 150s, which covers many of the situations when cement is used. This indicates that the addition of mesenchymal stem cells to cemented impaction grafting can be carried out without detrimental effects on the cells and that this may increase osteointegration


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XVIII | Pages 26 - 26
1 May 2012
Jones A Aarvold A New A Dunlop D Oreffo R
Full Access

AIM. Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head is a potentially debilitating disease of the hip in young adults. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) of morcellised fresh frozen allograft is used in a number of orthopaedic conditions. This study has examined the potential of skeletal stem cells (SSC) to augment the mechanical properties of impacted bone graft and we translate these findings into clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN. We have examined the effect of SSC density on augmentation of bone formation. An in vitro model was developed to replicate the surgical IBG process. Plain allograft was used as the control, and the SSC's seeded at a density of 5×103, 5×104 and 2×105 cells per cc of allograft for the experimental groups. All samples were cultured for 2 weeks and mechanically tested to determine shear strength using the Mohr Coulomb failure curve. The approach was translated to 3 patients with early avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head. The patient's bone marrow was concentrated in theatre using a centrifugation device and the concentrated fraction of SSC's were seeded onto milled allograft. The patient's necrotic bone was drilled, curetted and replaced with impacted allograft seeded with SSC's. Osteogenic potential of concentrated and unconcentrated marrow was simultaneously compared in vitro by colony forming unit assays. RESULTS. The mechanical properties of the impacted allograft was significantly improved as a function of increasing SSC density. The difference compared to the control plain allograft was highly significant at the 2×105 level (p=0.001). Autologous SCC's on impacted bone allograft was subsequently applied in 3 patient cases and up to two year follow up demonstrates no deleterious effect. Critically the analysis of concentrated marrow demonstrated a higher SSC count in vitro than plain marrow aspirate. DISCUSSION. We have demonstrated the potential of skeletal stem cells to augment the mechanical properties of impacted bone allograft in a laboratory model and subsequently translated these findings into a new technique for the treatment of AVN of the femoral head. Such an approach provides not only improved mechanical support to the overlying cartilage but critically improved biology for new bone formation. The early clinical results are encouraging and indicate potential use also in fracture non-unions and void filling of bone defects


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 5 | Pages 615 - 618
1 May 2012
ten Have BLEF Brouwer MD RW van Biezen FC Verhaar JAN

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of revision of the femoral component of a total hip replacement using impaction bone grafting. Femoral revision with an impacted allograft was performed on 29 patients (31 hips). In all, 21 hips (68%) had grade III or IV femoral defects according to the Endo-Klinik classification. A total of 11 patients (12 hips) died before the ten-year follow-up period. Of the remaining patients, 18 patients (19 hips) were followed for 10 to 15 years; three further patients died during this time. None of the 31 stems underwent further revision of their stem. However, four stems showed extensive subsidence (> 15 mm). One of these patients had a femoral fracture that required fixation. Three other patients had a femoral fracture, two of which required fixation and the other was treated conservatively. Patients with a femoral fracture and/or severe subsidence had significantly more grade IV defects (six of seven hips; p = 0.004). One patient needed a closed reduction for dislocation. Impaction allografting in revision hip surgery gives good long-term results for femora with grades I, II and III Endo-Klinik-classified defects. Extensive subsidence and femoral fractures were seen mainly in patients with grade IV damaged femora


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 2 | Pages 167 - 172
1 Feb 2012
Buttaro MA Costantini J Comba F Piccaluga F

We determined the midterm survival, incidence of peri-prosthetic fracture and the enhancement of the width of the femur when combining struts and impacted bone allografts in 24 patients (25 hips) with severe femoral bone loss who underwent revision hip surgery. The pre-operative diagnosis was aseptic loosening in 16 hips, second-stage reconstruction in seven, peri-prosthetic fracture in one and stem fracture in one hip. A total of 14 hips presented with an Endoklinik grade 4 defect and 11 hips a grade 3 defect. The mean pre-operative Merle D’Aubigné and Postel score was 5.5 points (1 to 8).

The survivorship was 96% (95% confidence interval 72 to 98) at a mean of 54.5 months (36 to 109). The mean functional score was 17.3 points (16 to 18). One patient in which the strut did not completely bypass the femoral defect was further revised using a long cemented stem due to peri-prosthetic fracture at six months post-operatively. The mean subsidence of the stem was 1.6 mm (1 to 3). There was no evidence of osteolysis, resorption or radiolucencies during follow-up in any hip. Femoral width was enhanced by a mean of 41% (19% to 82%). A total of 24 hips had partial or complete bridging of the strut allografts.

This combined biological method was associated with a favourable survivorship, a low incidence of peri-prosthetic fracture and enhancement of the width of the femur in revision total hip replacement in patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss.