Introduction. Genu valgum is a common presentation in paediatric patients with congenital limb deformities. The aim of this study is to assess the outcome of guided growth surgery in paediatric patients referred via our physiotherapy pathway with isolated genu valgum and associated patellar instability. Materials & Methods. Patients were identified from our prospective patellar instability database. Inclusion criteria was acquired or congenital genu valgum associated with patellar instability in skeletally immature patients. The mechanical lateral-distal femoral angle was assessed on long leg alignment radiographs (mLDFA <85 degrees). Surgical treatment was the placement of a guided growth plate (PediPlate, OrthoPediatrics, USA) on the medial distal femoral physis (hemi-epiphysiodesis). KOOS-child scores were collected pre-operatively and post-operatively (minimum at 6 months). Results. Eleven patients (seven female) with mean age of 12(range 5–15) were identified. Five patients had congenital talipes equinovarus(CTEV), one fibular hemimelia, one di-George syndrome, one septic growth arrest and three had idiopathic genu valgum. Pre- and post-operative KOOS-child scores showed overall improvement: 58(range 36–68) to 88(65–99) and knee symptoms subscores: 64(43–71) to 96(68–100) p<0.01, t-test. Mean follow-up was 10 months (range 3–23). No subsequent dislocations/subluxations occurred during follow-up. Conclusions. Guided growth surgery is an effective way of treating symptomatic patellar instability in skeletally immature patients with genu valgum in the absence of other structural pathology. It was most common in our cohort in patients with unilateral CTEV. We would recommend to screen syndromic and congenital limb deformity patients for patellar instability symptoms in the presence of genu valgum

Recurrent patellar instability is a common problem and there are multiple demographic and pathoanatomic risk factors that predispose patients to dislocating their patella. The most common of these is trochlear dysplasia. In cases of severe trochlear dysplasia associated with patellar instability, a sulcus deepening trochleoplasty combined with a medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) may be indicated. Unaddressed trochlear pathology has been associated with failure and poor post-operative outcomes after stabilization. The purpose of this study is to report the clinical outcome of patients having undergone a trochleoplasty and MPFLR for recurrent lateral patellofemoral instability in the setting of high-grade trochlear dysplasia at a mean of 2 years follow-up. A prospectively collected database was used to identify 46 patients (14 bilateral) who underwent a combined primary MPFLR and trochleoplasty for recurrent patellar instability with high-grade trochlear dysplasia between August 2013 and July 2021. A single surgeon performed a thin flap trochleoplasty using a lateral para-patellar approach with lateral retinaculum lengthening in all 60 cases. A tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) was performed concomitantly in seven knees (11.7%) and the MPFLR was performed with a gracilis tendon autograft in 22%, an allograft tendon in 27% and a quadriceps tendon autograft in 57% of cases. Patients were assessed post-operatively at three weeks and three, six, 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome was the Banff Patellar Instability Instrument 2.0 (BPII 2.0) and secondary outcomes were incidence of recurrent instability, complications and reoperations. The mean age was 22.2 years (range, 13 to 45), 76.7% of patients were female, the mean BMI was 25.03 and the prevalence of a positive Beighton score (>4/9) was 40%. The mean follow-up was 24.3 (range, 6 to 67.7) months and only one patient was lost to follow-up before one year post-operatively. The BPII 2.0 improved significantly from a mean of 27.3 pre-operatively to 61.1 at six months (p < 0 .01) and further slight improvement to a mean of 62.1 at 12 months and 65.6 at 24 months post-operatively. Only one patient (1.6%) experienced a single event of subluxation without frank dislocation at nine months. There were three reoperations (5%): one for removal of the TTO screws and prominent chondral nail, one for second-look arthroscopy for persistent J-sign and one for mechanical symptoms associated with overgrowth of a lateral condyle cartilage repair with a bioscaffold. There were no other complications. In this patient cohort, combined MPFLR and trochleoplasty for recurrent patellar instability with severe trochlear dysplasia led to significant improvement of patient reported outcome scores and no recurrence of patellar dislocation at a mean of 2 years. Furthermore, in this series the procedure demonstrated a low rate (5%) of complications and reoperations

Abstract. Objectives. The study aims to determine whether an arthroscopic ligament reconstruction is necessary to relieve clinical ankle instability symptoms in patients with an MRI scan showing medial or lateral ligament tear. Methods. This was a single centre retrospective case series study of 25 patients with ankle instability and ligament tear on MRI scan who had undergone arthroscopic procedures from January 2015 to December 2018. Patients were followed up for an average period of 3 years postoperatively to check for any recurrence of symptoms. Results. Of the 25 patients, 23 had ATFL tear on MRI scan, and 2 had deltoid ligament tear. Examination under anaesthesia was stable in 13 patients and unstable in 12 patients. The majority of the patients (76%) had a simple arthroscopic ankle debridement and no ligament repair. Six patients needed Brostrom repair. Conclusions. Our study has shown that in patients with MRI proven ligament tear and clinical instability, a ligament reconstruction was unnecessary in most patients. The instability symptoms of patients were relieved by simple ankle arthroscopic debridement

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment/loosening which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained condylar design that is unlinked. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration and off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

The best algorithm, measurements, and criteria for screening children with Down syndrome for upper cervical instability are controversial. Many authors have recommended obtaining flexion and extension views. We noted that patients who require surgical stabilization due to myelopathy or cord compression typically have grossly abnormal radiographic measurements on the neutral upright lateral cervical spine radiograph (NUL). This study was designed to determine whether a full series of cervical spine images including flexion/extension lateral radiographs (FEL) was important to avoid missing upper cervical instability. This is a retrospective evaluation of cervical spine images obtained between 2006 and 2012 for the purposes of “screening” children with Down syndrome for evidence of instability. The atlanto-dental interval, space available for cord, and basion axial interval were measured on all films. The Weisel-Rothman measurement was made in the FEL series. Clinical outcome of those with abnormal measurements were reviewed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of NUL and FEL x-rays for identifying clinically significant cervical spine instability were calculated. Two-hundred and forty cervical spine series in 213 patients with Down syndrome between the ages of four months and 25 years were reviewed. One hundred and seventy-two children had a NUL view, and 88 of these patients also had FEL views. Only one of 88 patients was found to have an abnormal ADI (≥6mm), SAC (≤14mm), or BAI (>12mm) on an FEL series that did not have an abnormal measurement on the NUL. This patient had no evidence of cord compression or myelopathy. Obtaining a single NUL x-ray is an efficient method for radiographic screening of cervical spine instability. Further evaluation may be required if abnormal measurements are identified on the NUL x-ray. We also propose new “normal” values for the common radiographic measurements used in assessing risk of cervical spine instability in patients with Down syndrome

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

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening and settling of the implants which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Also, collateral ligament integrity may change following total knee replacement slightly after complete correction of a severe deformity that presents rarely as instability after several months. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by manual or radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate ligament retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained unlinked condylar design. Occasionally, a posterior cruciate ligament preserving design can be used in situations where the bone-stock is well preserved and the posterior cruciate ligament shows excellent structural integrity. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. Revision can range from simple polyethylene insert exchange to a thicker dimension, isolated component revision or complete revision of both femoral and tibial devices. During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space is achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. In cases with considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, a rotating hinge design should be utilised. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support or there is a hip prosthetic stem that prohibits a stem from engaging the isthmic cortex. However, it should be realised that later revision of the fully cemented revision implant may be quite difficult. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability early. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

Introduction. 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. The purpose of this study was to classify causes of instability and evaluate outcomes based on an algorithmic approach to treatment. Methods. Two surgeons performed 77 consecutive revisions for instability. Patients had a mean of 2 (range, 0 to 6) prior operative attempts to resolve their instability. Subjects were divided into 6 types based on the etiology of instability: I) malposition of the acetabular component, II) malposition of the femoral component, III) abductor deficiency, IV) impingement, V) late wear, or VI) unclear etiology. Types I /II were treated with revision of the malpositioned component, Type III/VI with a constrained liner, Type IV by removing sources of impingement and Type V with a liner change. Large (>36 mm) femoral heads were used routinely. Results. The causes of instability were Type I: 25 (33%); Type II: 8 (10%); Type III: 28 (37%); Type IV: 7 (9%); Type V: 5 (7%); Type VI: 3 (4%). At a mean of 32.5 months (Range, 24 to 79) 12 patients re-dislocated (15.6%). Among these 12 failures 8 (75%) were in patients with abductor insufficiency (Type III) treated with a constrained liner. Conclusions. The most common causes of instability were cup malposition and abductor insufficiency. Our treatment protocol had an 84.4% success rate. The highest risk of failure was in patients with abductor insufficiency with a revision for other etiologies having a success rate of 92%

Instability currently represents one of the main causes of residual pain and symptoms following TKA and thus is a major cause of revision total knee replacement, second only to component loosening in some series. Instability related to ligamentous laxity can be categorised by the pattern of relative laxity of the soft tissue structures and this in turn helps in determination of the bony alignment issue, component sizing or positioning problem or ligamentous abnormality that may be contributory and require correction. Instability patterns associated with TKA can be symmetrical and global type instability where there is laxity in all planes, and can also more commonly be asymmetrical or isolated laxity problems where there is good stability in some planes or positions of the knee but excessive laxity in at least one direction. Isolated laxity problems can be subcategorised into one of 3 patterns: Extension instability, Flexion instability, and Recurvatum. Global laxity can occur due to inadequate tibial component thickness, or globally incompetent soft tissues, and can present initially after TKA or alternatively can present late from slow stretch of soft tissues over time as can be seen with some pathologic states. Asymmetrical or Isolated laxity occurs in the sagittal plane when medial vs. lateral “gaps” are unequal and may be due to contracture of tight structures either medially or laterally or can be due to insufficiency or injury of the ligamentous structures on one side vs. the normal structures on other side. Occasionally there is a combination of both contracture on one side and attenuation/stretch on the other side as seen in some patients with severe long standing genu varum or genu valgum. Asymmetrical laxity in the frontal plane generally results in unequal extension vs. flexion “gaps”. This can cause either anteroposterior laxity in flexion but full extension with good stability or alternatively, there may be AP stability in flexion but a lack of full extension in the presence of the exact same pattern of imbalance when a “too thick” polyethylene insert is used to correct what would otherwise be flexion instability. In both cases, the extension gap is tighter than the flexion gap. Isolated recurvatum occurs when the posterior capsular structures are relatively lax or deficient so that a knee that is otherwise stable in the medial-lateral plane in extension, and is stable in the AP plane when in flexion, hyperextends in the fully extended position. In any TKA procedure (but especially revision for instability) it is critical to understand the effect of selected bone resection (or build ups) on soft tissue balancing in order to avoid or treat ligamentous laxity: distal femur – effects extension gap only; posterior femur – effects flexion gap only; proximal tibia – both flexion and extension spaces. During revision for instability, careful evaluation of the cause of the laxity and failure is critically important, especially if there is associated axial deformity or malalignment which generally must be corrected for any reconstruction or revision components to work. Most knees revised for instability issues will require a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar design. Constrained condylar implants are used to compensate for residual medial-lateral imbalance still present after standard soft tissue releases medially (subperiosteal tibia) or laterally (vis selective pie-crust method). However, if the patient displays residual major medial-lateral or global instability that cannot be corrected, or when there is an excessive flexion gap that cannot be stabilised with maximal allowable component sizing, a rotating hinge constrained total knee replacement design may be required. Recent data has shown that rotating hinges can work reliably in restoring stability to the knee in such cases with satisfactory durability and clinical results over time

A total knee replacement (TKR) with instability is one in which the supporting soft tissues have failed or are unable to function due to component size and/or position. Instability following TKR can lead to the need for surgery in 10–22% of revision cases. Patients may complain of symptoms of giving way, difficulty climbing stairs, and the sensation that their knee may buckle under stress. Physical findings may include soft-tissue tenderness in the peripatellar and pes anserine regions, recurrent joint effusions, and joint laxity. The cause of instability after TKR should be determined pre-operatively so the problem may be corrected at the time of revision. Instability after TKR may be due to component loosening, ligament rupture/incompetence, component malposition, mismatched flexion/extension gaps, or failure to correct ligament imbalance at the time of the index procedure. A common scenario after a cruciate-retaining TKR is that of PCL rupture, thus leading to instability in flexion and excessive posterior translation of the tibia. Other scenarios leading to TKR instability are pre-operative valgus alignment with MCL stretching, resulting in the post-operative recurrence of medial instability; or excessive resection of the posterior femoral condyles from undersizing of the femoral component, leading to laxity in flexion. The treatment of instability after TKR generally requires component revision and balancing of the flexion and extension gaps. Isolated ligament reconstruction is not successful in the setting of a prosthetic joint due to the lack of inherent joint stability. At the time of revision, the surgeon must carefully assess the flexion gap; often posterior femoral augments must be used to upsize the femoral component and tighten the flexion space relative to the extension space; for this reason, isolated polyethylene exchange is not successful for flexion instability. For instability in the varus/valgus plane, rebalancing the knee by performing ligament releases and using a more stabilizing polyethylene insert may by sufficient. The results of revision TKR for instability has been successful in the majority of cases, decreasing the symptoms of giving way and difficulty stairclimbing. A careful assessment of the varus/valgus stability of the prosthetic knee and the flexion/extension spaces at the time of revision TKR, along with the use of augments and more stabilised articulations, is mandatory in order to achieve good results

Flexion instability is a well-defined, though often difficult to diagnose, type of TKA instability. It may also complicate posterior stabilised arthroplasties. It is one of three modes of tibial-femoral instability along with: 1. Varus-valgus or coronal plane instability and 2. Instability in the plane of motion that results from either fixed flexion contracture and buckling or recurvatum and collapse. The issues for correction of coronal instability are generally alignment and either ligamentous balance or constraint. For plane of motion instability it is full extension without hyperextension and restoration of extensor mechanism power. The issues for flexion instability are basically balanced flexion and extension gaps. The diagnosis of flexion instability is made by history and physical examination. These patients, with a more spacious or lax flexion gap, initially do extremely well following surgery, achieving flexion rapidly and comfortably. They progress within months however, to a condition of chronic swelling and tenderness of peri-articular soft tissue, recurrent effusion and a feeling of unease up and down the stairs, as well as getting up out of a chair: anything that stresses the knee in the flexed position. The diagnosis is confirmed by clinical examination. In gross cases, the patient sitting on the edge of the exam table with the legs dangling and flexed at 90 degrees will first of all close the flexion gap, bringing the tibial component into contact with the posterior femoral condyles when they contract the quadriceps muscle. This vertical motion that precedes extension can be observed. Similarly, if the patient is supine, with the knee flexed to 90 degrees, the examiner may grasp the ankle and with a hand under the thigh, distract the flexion gap and then allow it to close. The travel and the clunk can be appreciated. The standard ‘posterior drawer’ test that is appropriate for the non-arthroplasty knee will only be useful for relatively non-constrained, cruciate dependent prostheses. It will not be useful for flexion instability in the posterior stabilised prosthesis. It is useful to perform this distraction maneuver in flexion, during the arthroplasty with trial components in place to confirm that the arthroplasty is stable in flexion. The common maneuver to assess the flexion gap, of internally and externally rotating the femur to detect medial lateral instability in flexion seems to be less accurate. The patients at greatest risk for this complication are those presenting for arthroplasty with a fixed flexion contracture. If a measured resection technique is employed without consideration of correcting the tighter extension gap, when a (relatively thinner) poly insert is selected to achieve full extension, it will not be thick enough to stabilise the larger/normal flexion gap. Flexion instability should not be confused with so-called “mid-flexion” instability, which is a poorly defined and much more subtle, clinical entity that has been described in case reports of revision surgery and the cadaver laboratory. Although more conforming articular polyethylene inserts may resolve this problem, even if revision is performed to a more constrained component, the essence of the solution is revision arthroplasty to balance the flexion and extension gaps

Larger diameter femoral heads and improved operative approaches and soft tissue repair/closure have somewhat reduced the incidence of recurrent instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Nevertheless, hip instability remains one of the most common reasons for reoperation after THA, and accounts for roughly a quarter of hip revisions in the United States in Medicare patients. The prevalence of instability after THA varies widely, from 0.3% to 15%. Surgeons have come to understand that hip instability can be caused by implant malposition, impingement, and inadequate soft tissue tension or integrity. While the cumulative risk of instability is acceptable at approximately 2.8% with transtrochanteric approaches, this is based upon the trochanter actually healing (and often being advanced). On the other hand, trochanteric nonunion and proximal migration have been noted by many, and this frequently results in catastrophic instability. Moreover, and importantly, abductor insufficiency is one the most difficult causes of hip instability to solve. Woo and Morrey reported a 17.6% instability rate when trochanteric nonunion occurred with 1 cm proximal trochanteric migration. Alternatively, the contemporary incidence of instability with the posterolateral or anterolateral approaches, and an adequate soft tissue repair, is approximately 1–2%

The key to management of instability when performing total shoulder arthroplasty is to recognise the potential for instability, and avoid the pitfalls which may lead to it post-operatively. Instability can result from incompetent capsular or rotator cuff soft tissue envelopes. It may also result from muscular imbalances, as well as incompetent bony architecture (severe posterior wear causing extreme retroversion, or anterior glenoid loss from fracture) extreme retroversion or improper placement or fixation of implants. Keys to providing a stable environment include performing careful soft tissue releases and providing muscular balance about the reconstructed arthroplasty; placement of implants in proper version; appropriate tensioning (height) and sizing (avoiding undersizing or overstuffing) of implants; recognizing incompetent rotator cuff substance or function and providing more stable, constrained implants (reverse total shoulder arthroplasty), when necessary. Keys to recognizing potential instability, tips and pearls for intra-operative and post-operative surgical management will be provided

Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by manual or radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate ligament retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed. For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained unlinked condylar design that, although sometimes a posterior cruciate ligament preserving design can be used in situations where the bone-stock is well preserved. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space is achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. In cases with considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, then a rotating hinge design should be utilised. Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support or there is a hip prosthetic stem that prohibits a stem from engaging the isthmic cortex. However, it should be realised that later revision of the fully cemented revision implant may be quite difficult. Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result

Post total knee arthroplasty, mid flexion instability can be described as a stable knee in full extension but as soon as knee starts bending instability is noticed and the knee becomes stable again at 90° of flexion. Mid flexion instability should not be confused with the true flexion instability. Such instability may be not be recognized in most cases because of subtleness of the nature of complaints of the patient. Soft tissue tension should be equal not only medio-laterally but also in antero-posterior alignment. The knee needs to be balanced in the complete arc of motion. To understand this it should be remembered that main stabilizer of the knee in extension is the posterior capsule and in flexion are the collateral ligaments. Main factors contributing to Mid Flexion instability are:. 1. Over release of anterior part of Medial Collateral Ligament (which is a stabilizer from 30° to 60° of motion). 2. Femoral-tibial articular geometry - Malposition of the implant in relation to the epicondyles so that collateral ligaments won't be isometric. 3. Over release of anterior part of Medial Collateral Ligament (which is a stabilizer between 30° to 60° of motion. 4. Tibial post-femoral box geometry. In a fixed flexion deformity, suitable posterior release should be matched with the collateral frame before taking extra-distal femoral cuts. Every 2 mm of additional distal femoral cut causes mid flexion instability of 2 to 3° as was seen in a cadaveric study. It is important to understand the interplay between posterior structures and collateral structures. Normally collateral structures have some laxity at 5° flexion but at 0° knees are locked mainly because of the tension of the posterior structures. We have classified mid flexion instability in three types:. Type I: Over-released MCL and Normalised Posterior capsule. Type II: MCL Normal, but Posterior capsule is tight / insufficiently released and to balance this disparity distal femur cut is increased. Type III: A Combination of above two conditions with MCL and Postero-medial Capsule both having laxity e.g. in a FFD with varus. It is a retro-prospective study. 411 patients with 600 knees were subjected to the study to assess mid-flexion instability in patients with primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. Follow was over a period of 5 years. Of the 600 TKA 60 were LCS prosthesis, 90 were PFC RP, 200 were PFC sigma and rest 250 were Stryker Scorpio. All patients were assessed by clinical and radiological evaluation. X-rays were taken in 0°, 30°, 60°. Arthrograms were also done to assess alignment of the joints. Fluroscopic studies were done in select few cases. Knee society score was noted for each patient and compared with pre-operative data. Mid Flexion instability in a newer concept, the causes of which and further management protocols needs to be worked out. Mid Flexion instability is a failure to release the tight posterior capsule in a fixed flexion deformity. Over release of anterior MCL will result in mid flexion instability but in this situation knee may be unstable even at 90°

Instability remains a common reason for revision after primary TKA. Careful preoperative examination is necessary to determine the exact direction of and reason for the instability. Radiographs and CT can be useful to evaluate component alignment and rotation. Obviously, ruling out concurrent infection should be a part of the routine preoperative workup. PCL insufficiency can be treated by conversion to a more “dished” insert if available, and all other component issues are acceptable. If dished inserts are not available, then revision to a posterior stabilised component can be effective. Flexion instability can occur with PCL substituting designs, and may require revision as well. Up-sizing, and posteriorising the femoral component (often requiring posterior augmentation) to tighten the flexion gap can be an effective strategy. With collateral ligament problems, so called CCK or “constrained” implants can be effective. While ligament advancement or augmentation techniques have been described, few surgeons are familiar with these techniques, and most “back up” such reconstructions with constrained implants. With more severe collateral ligament deficiencies, multi-directional instabilities, or massive flexion-extension gap mismatches, the use of so-called “hinged” implants can be effective. It is wise to have various levels of constraint available preoperatively when undertaking these challenging revisions

Knee replacements may be unstable in the: 1. Plane of motion instability, due to recurvatum or buckling (in flexion). 2. Coronal plane or varus-valgus instability and 3. Flexed position. The third, flexion instability, has been well described and is characterised clinically by early, easy, superior flexion that is then compromised by difficulties with ascending and descending stairs, recurrent effusions and peri-articular tenderness. This “flexion instability” results generally from a flexion gap that is more spacious than the extension gap, where the polyethylene insert has been selected to permit full extension. The term “mid-flexion” instability should not be used as a synonym for “flexion instability”. The concept of mid-flexion instability implies that the knee is stable in extension and stable in flexion (90 degrees) but unstable at points in between. The most common error in assessment probably occurs when surgeons observe stability to varus-valgus stress with the knee locked in full extension, where it is not appreciated that the posterior structures are tight and stabilising the knee. Once the knee if flexed enough to relax these structures, the true “flexion instability is revealed. This is not “mid-flexion” instability. It is conceivable, that an arthroplasty might be designed where the geometry of the femoral condylar curve is such a large, recessed radius that the collateral ligaments are tight in both full extension and 90 degrees of flexion, but unstable in between. There have been marketing allegations that one product or another has been designed in a way to result in “mid-flexion instability. The only published information is based on finite element analysis models. There is scant literature on “mid-flexion” instability”. Laboratory investigations with cadavers, concluded that proximal elevation of the joint line may create “mid-flexion” instability as a result of altering collateral ligament function. Computer models have questioned this effect. One clinical report describes “mid-flexion” (rotational) instability in a revision arthroplasty. So-called “anatomic alignment”, posterior stabilization and resection of distal femur to correct flexion contractures have been alleged to cause “mid-flexion” instability

Introduction. Symptomatic instability following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a leading cause of early failure. Despite numerous reports on instability, standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols for these patients continue to remain unclear. Most reports recommend component revision as the preferred treatment, because of poor outcomes and high failure rates associated with isolated tibial polyethylene insert exchange (ITPIE). However, modern implant systems and standardized protocols may potentially change this teaching. Methods. We performed an IRB-approved, retrospective review of 90 consecutive patients with minimum 2 years follow-up who underwent revision TKA for instability by one of four arthroplasty surgeons at a single institution. Mean age was 62.0 years (range, 41 to 83 years), and 73% of patients were women. Charts were reviewed for relevant preoperative clinical and physical exam findings, as well as pertinent intraoperative findings. Radiographs were analyzed for femoral and tibial component positioning. Pre- and post-operative Knee Society Scores (KSS) were calculated. Results. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. Using standardized criteria, 40% of patients were treated with ITPIE while 60% underwent revision of one or both components. In those treated with ITPIE, mean increase in polyethylene thickness was 4.4mm; level of constraint was also increased whenever allowed by the primary implants (47% of ITPIE cases). Total arc of motion improved from 117° to 123°. There were significant postoperative improvements in both KSS knee (48.4 to 82.6) and function (49.0 to 81.0) scores. Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant differences in motion or KSS between those treated with ITPIE versus revision of one or both components. Combined failure rates were 19.4% in the ITPIE group versus 18.5% in the component revision group (p = 1.00). Conclusions. Using an algorithmic approach to patients with instability following TKA, symptoms and function can reliably be improved. Contrary to conventional teaching, ITPIE can be an effective strategy at addressing instability symptoms when specific preoperative and intraoperative criteria can be fulfilled

Introduction. Midcarpal instability is an uncommon but troublesome problem. Patients have loss of dynamic control of the wrist in pronation and ulnar deviation due to laxity of the volar wrist ligaments that is often congenital or due to minor trauma. For those in whom conservative measures fail, open ligament reconstruction or fusions have been described. Aim. We prospectively studied a series of fourteen patients who underwent arthroscopic thermal capsular shrinkage for midcarpal instability. Methods. All patients were assessed clinically and by fluoroscopy and arthroscopy to confirm the diagnosis. Wrist arthroscopy with four portals was performed and monopolar radiofrequency capsular shrinkage was performed using a 2.3mm probe. Post-operatively the wrist was immobilised in a splint for 6 weeks. Results. Fourteen wrists in eleven patients were treated. Mean length of follow-up was 44 months. Symptoms of instability never occurred in three wrists and rarely occurred in eleven. The patient's subjective overall assessment of the wrist was ‘much better’ in ten wrists, ‘better’ for one wrist and ‘worse’ for three wrists. These three cases had persistent pain but improvement of instability symptoms. Two of these cases belonged to the same patient who had Ehlers Danlos syndrome. All patients were satisfied with the outcome and would have the same procedure again. The mean pre-operative DASH score was 35.2 and 17.1 at the most recent follow-up. Mean flexion decreased by 25% and mean extension by 17%. There were no significant complications. Conclusion. Capsular shrinkage is an effective procedure for midcarpal instability. Although there are some concerns regarding deterioration of results over time as seen in shoulder instability, these mid-term results show that this is currently not a problem

Introduction. Sagittal pelvic tilt (SPT) can change with spinal pathologies and fusion. Change in the SPT can result in impingement and hip instability. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of the SPT change for hip instability to test the hypothesis that the magnitude of SPT change for hip instability is less than 10° and it is not similar for different hip motions. Methods. Hip implant motions were simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting and pivoting in Matlab software. When prosthetic head and liner are parallel, femoral head dome (FHD) faces the center of the liner. FHD moves toward the edge of the liner with hip motions. The maximum distance between the FHD and the center in each motion was calculated and analyzed. To make the results more reliable and to consider the possibility of bony impingement, when the FHD approached 90% of the distance between the liner-center and liner-edge, we considered the hip “in danger for dislocation”. The implant orientations and SPT were modified by 1-degree increments and we used linear regression with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) to determine the magnitude of SPT change that could cause instability. Results. SPT modification as low as 7° could result in dislocation during pivoting (AUC: 87.5; sensitivity: 87.9; specificity 79.8; p=0.0001). This was as low as 10° for squatting (AUC: 91.5; sensitivity: 100; specificity 75.9; p=0.0001) and as low as 13° for sit-to-stand (AUC: 94.6; sensitivity: 98; specificity 83; p=0.0001). SPT modification affects hip stability more in pivoting than sit-to-stand and squatting. Discussion. Our results show the importance of close collaboration between the hip and spine surgeons in treating patients who undergo THA and spinal fusion. The postoperative SPT modification should be considered for preoperative computer simulation for determining the implant safe zone