Search

Purpose: Implant loosening represent the most common indication for stem revision in hip revision arthroplasty. This study compares femoral bone loss and the risk of initial revisions between cemented and uncemented loosened primary stems, investigating the impact of fixation method at primary implantation on femoral bone defects. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 255 patients who underwent their first revision for stem loosening from 2010 to 2022, receiving either cemented or uncemented stem implants. Femoral bone loss was preoperatively measured using the Paprosky classification through radiographic evaluations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated the survival probability of the original stem, and the hazard ratio assessed the relative risk of revision for uncemented versus cemented stems in the first postoperative year and the following two to ten years. Results: Cemented stems showed a higher prevalence of significant bone loss (type 3b and 4 defects: 32.39% vs. 2.72%, p <.001) compared to uncemented stems, which more commonly had type 1 and 2 defects (82.07% vs. 47.89%, p <.001). In our analysis of revision cases, primary uncemented stems demonstrated a 20% lower incidence of stem loosening in the first year post-implantation compared to cemented stems (HR 0.8; 95%-CI 0.3-2.0). However, the incidence in uncemented stems increased by 20% during the subsequent years two to ten (HR 1.2; 95%-CI 0.7–1.8). Septic loosening was more common in cemented stems (28.17% vs. 10.87% in uncemented stems, p =.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a modestly longer revision-free period for cemented stems within the first ten years post-implantation (p <.022). Conclusion: During first-time revision, cemented stems show significantly larger femoral bone defects than uncemented stems. Septic stem loosening occurred 17.30% more in cemented stems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: When performing revision total hip arthroplasty using diaphyseal-engaging titanium tapered stems (TTS), the recommended 3 to 4 cm of stem-cortical diaphyseal contact may not be available. In challenging cases such as these with only 2 cm of contact, can sufficient axial stability be achieved and what is the benefit of a prophylactic cable? This study sought to determine, first, whether a prophylactic cable allows for sufficient axial stability when the contact length is 2 cm, and second, if differing TTS taper angles (2° vs 3.5°) impact these results. Methods: A biomechanical matched-pair cadaveric study was designed using six matched pairs of human fresh cadaveric femora prepared so that 2 cm of diaphyseal bone engaged with 2° (right femora) or 3.5° (left femora) TTS. Before impaction, three matched pairs received a single 100 lb-tensioned prophylactic beaded cable; the remaining three matched pairs received no cable adjuncts. Specimens underwent stepwise axial loading to 2600 N or until failure, defined as stem subsidence > 5 mm. Results: All specimens without cable adjuncts (6/6 femora) failed during axial testing, while all specimens with a prophylactic cable (6/6) successfully resisted axial load, regardless of taper angle. In total, four of the failed specimens experienced proximal longitudinal fractures, three of which occurred with the higher 3.5° TTS. One fracture occurred in a 3.5° TTS with a prophylactic cable yet passed axial testing, subsiding < 5 mm. Among specimens with a prophylactic cable, the 3.5° TTS resulted in lower mean subsidence (0.5 mm (SD 0.8)) compared with the 2° TTS (2.4 mm (SD 1.8)). Conclusion: A single prophylactic beaded cable dramatically improved initial axial stability when stem-cortex contact length was 2 cm. All implants failed secondary to fracture or subsidence > 5 mm when a prophylactic cable was not used. A higher taper angle appears to decrease the magnitude of subsidence but increased the fracture risk. The fracture risk was mitigated by the use of a prophylactic cable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):472–477.

Extensively porous-coated cylindrical stems have demonstrated excellent results in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, most studies are midterm follow-ups and of modest cohort size. This study aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of a large series of extensively porous-coated stems. From 1992 to 2003, 925 extensively porous-coated stems were utilized in revision THAs at a single institution. The mean age was 65 years, and 57% of patients were males. Harris hip scores were calculated, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Radiographic assessment for stem fixation was categorized as either in-grown, fibrous stable, or loose according to Engh criteria. Risk analysis used Cox proportional hazard method. The mean follow-up was 13 years. Mean Harris hip scores improved from 56 to 80 at the last follow-up (P <.001). Fifty-three femoral stems (5%) were rerevised: 26 for aseptic loosening, 11 for stem fractures, 8 for infection, 5 for periprosthetic femoral fractures, and 3 for dislocation. Cumulative incidence of aseptic femoral loosening and femoral rerevision for any reason were 3% and 6.4% at 20 years, respectively. Nine of eleven stem fractures occurred with 10.5-13.5 mm diameters (mean 6 years). Radiographic review of unrevized stems demonstrated 94% bone-ingrown. Demographics, femoral bone loss, stem diameter, and length were not predictors of femoral rerevision. In this large series of revision THAs using a single extensively porous-coated stem design, the cumulative incidence of rerevision for aseptic femoral loosening was 3% at 20 years. These data confirm the durability of this stem in femoral revision, providing a long-term benchmark for newer uncemented revision stems. Level IV, retrospective study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recurrent hip dislocation after multiple revision total hip arthroplasty is a severe complication. Therefore, constrained acetabular liners (CL) have been used during salvage procedures. We report our experience of constrained liners in a re-revision setting with focus on re-dislocation. We also evaluated acetabular and femoral bone loss as potential risk factor. Methods: Between January 2013 and December 2016, 65 patients were treated in a single institution for revision and re-revision hip arthroplasty using CL. The indication for using a CL was a high risk of re-redislocation after multiple recurrent hip dislocation including failed Dual Mobility Cups (DMC). Compromising soft tissue defects as well as severe bone defect were therefore regarded as high risks. Thirty-eight patients (77.6%) underwent a minimum of three surgical procedures before the index revision procedure. Sixteen patients (24.6%) were excluded as they were lost to follow-up, expired before minimum follow-up or refused study participation, leaving 49 patients in the analysis (75.4%). The mean follow-up was 62 months (44–74; SD = 7.7). We assessed the following potential risk factors for revision or dislocation: type of surgical setting (septic/aseptic), BMI, cup inclination angle, size of liner used and acetabular and femoral bone loss according to Paprosky classification. The primary endpoints were dislocation or repeat revision for any reason. Results: Of the 49 patients, we found an overall re-revision rate of 40.8% (20/49) and a dislocation rate of 30.6% (15/49). There were no significant differences among the surgical re-revision rate or dislocation rate as a factor of patient characteristics. In terms of bone loss, there was a trend towards higher revision rates for increasing acetabular and femoral bone loss, but without statistical significance. Conclusions: We found the use of a constrained liner in a re-revision setting still bears a high risk of re-revision and re-dislocation. Therefore we restrained from using constrained liners in favour of Dual mobility cups. In this study there was no significant higher dislocation rate in the subgroup of periprosthetic infection. Furthermore the rigid design of a constrained liner bears the known risk of structural failure of acetabular reconstruction implants. Severe acetabular or femoral bone defects seem to have an impact on the revision rate, but not on the dislocation rate with regards to the restored offset and center of the hip. Results have to be taken into context such that the study population inherently has a predisposition for poorer outcomes. Indications should be strongly filtered for patients at high risk for recurrent hip joint dislocation including failed DMCs with only limited bone loss and moderate soft tissue defects. Our modification to the existing classification with a high inter and intraobserver reliability will make future studies more comparable regarding revisions and bone stock loss. Still further research using objective and reproducible parameters is needed to better analyze data especially in the background of complex revision hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235.

Abstract Background Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords. Results In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores. Conclusion PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

Introduction: With the increasing number of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA) being performed annually there is also an expected increase in the number of revision TKA, as well as failed revision TKA with stemmed components. A new classification system based upon the location and degree of bone loss in the tibial and or femoral metaphysis and diaphysis is proposed. Type 1 has no bone loss in the metaphysis and diaphysis; Type 2 has a metaphyseal bone loss. Type 3 defects are subdivided into A and B, depending on the extent of the diaphyseal bone loss. Type 4 has extensive bone loss with an expansion of the diaphyseal cortex.Method: An online survey with digital anteroposterior and lateral radiographs was sent to five arthroplasty surgeons. A total of 55 cases with stemmed femoral and tibial components, considered failures and pending revision, were reviewed. By using the proposed classification system, each femoral and tibial component was scored. Interobserver reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient for pooled data.Results: Comparisons between each individual reviewer demonstrated moderate to strong agreement overall for the reviewers using the classification, with an average correlation coefficient of 0.67 (95% CI [0.57 to 0.77]) for all cases, signifying a low variation in the scores of each case. Looking specifically at the femoral components, the ICC was 0.62 (95% CI [0.477 to 0.76]), while the ICC for the tibial components was 0.71 (95% CI [0.58 to 0.83]).Discussion: This classification, which has demonstrated moderate to strong interobserver reliability, can help surgeons determine the degree of anticipated bone loss and approach these complex cases with a preoperative plan based upon the radiographic images. This classification system will also allow standardized communication among surgeons, categorization of procedures for comparative research, and anticipated prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.Methods: A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.Results: In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.Conclusion: PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimum treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip with substantial bone defects remains controversial. A retrospective assessment was performed for 182 patients treated for PJI with a two-stage protocol from 2005 to 2015. Implant removal and debridement were followed by Girdlestone arthroplasty or spacer implantation. The results of the Girdlestone and spacer groups were compared. There were 71 cases that received spacers, and 111 Girdlestone procedures were performed. After the first stage, 26.37% of cultures were negative, and among patients with a detected pathogen, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism (41.79%). Acetabular and femoral bone defects, according to the Paprosky classification, were more severe in the Girdlestone group (P

Cortical bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty requires an adequate stabilization to achieve a durable implant fixation. This case series shall illustrate possible indications for the use of allogenic grafts in revision hip arthroplasty. Twelve patients with femoral bone loss were treated with allografts. In addition to established clinical scores, the radiological follow-ups were analyzed for hints of implants loosening and the osteointegration of the allografts. After a mean follow-up of 3.0 years the mHHS was 61.3 points and the UCLA 3.8. One patient showed a non-progressive radiolucency around the hip implant. The osteointegration of all allogenic grafts happened on time. Up to the last follow-up no revision surgery of the hip implants and the associated femoral bone graft was observed. Allogenic bone grafts present a method for biological stabilization in situations of large femoral cortical bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty.

Revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of severe femoral bone loss can be challenging, with salvage options often limited to modular tapered stems, allograft prosthetic composites, and megaprostheses. This case highlights a 79-year-old woman with 2 years of thigh pain who is 8 years status post a revision proximal femoral allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction. Radiographs demonstrated significant stem subsidence into the femoral condyle. In an attempt to avoid a total femoral replacement and spare her functioning native knee, a tibial cone was used in conjunction with a proximal femoral replacement to structurally fill the flaring femoral canal and serve as a stable pedestal for the megaprosthesis body and provide the potential for biologic ingrowth. At 12-month follow-up, she ambulates with a cane, and radiographs reveal stable implant position.

Background: A variety of classification systems have been developed to help surgeons treat patients with acetabular or femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty, yet no "gold standard" for classification has been agreed upon. Furthermore, the reliability and validity of the available classification systems remain unknown. Questions/Purpose: The aims of our study were to determine the reliability and validity of the three most common acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems (Paprosky, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS], and Saleh and Gross). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies that reported on the reliability or validity (or both) of the acetabular and femoral components of the three bone loss classification systems. Results: In all, seven articles met our inclusion criteria. Six studies reported on the reliability (all six studies) or validity (three studies) of acetabular bone loss rating systems (286 acetabula), and five analyzed reliability (all five studies) or validity (three studies) of femoral bone loss classification systems (364 femurs). In studies in which either the Paprosky or AAOS acetabular bone loss classifications were used, the classification systems were considered unreliable in 75% and 100% of them, respectively. On the femoral side, the Paprosky classification demonstrated moderate interobserver and good intraobserver reliability. The AAOS femoral bone classification was found to have good intraobserver reliability but poor interobserver reliability. The Saleh and Gross acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems yielded mixed results, but each was considered reliable in one of the studies looking at these aspects of the systems. Conclusion: Although surgical techniques, treatment options, and advanced imaging available to the surgeon have evolved over the past few decades, the acetabular and femoral bone loss classification systems, first developed in the 1990s, have remained largely unchanged. Our results indicate that improvements to these systems are necessary in order for them to be as useful as possible in planning the surgical course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge when there is severe femoral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision THA in patients with femoral bone loss treated with Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem. Methods: A retrospective review of 82 patients who underwent revision THA using tapered rectangular femoral stem between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken. Of the 82 patients, 9 patients were lost to follow-up and were excluded from the study. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening (92%), periprosthetic femur fracture (5%), and infection (3%). Bone loss was categorised preoperatively according to the Paprosky classification. The mean clinical follow-up was 14 years (range 10–19 years). Their mean age at the time of index surgery was 54.7 ± 15.3 (range 30–82) years. Results: The mean Harris Hip Score was significantly improved at final follow-up (68.1 ±10.3) compared with that before the revision surgery (30.4 ± 7.7) (p < 0.0001). Of the 75 stems, 69 (92%) stems were radiographically stable at the last evaluation. Among the 69 stems, 64 hips (85%) had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth and 5 (5%) had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. Among the 7 hips that were re-revised, 5 hips were re-revised for aseptic loosening, whereas 2 were re-revised for an infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with removal of the stem for any cause as the endpoint, revealed that the 15-year rate of survival of the components was 90% (95% CI, 0.83–0.97). Conclusion: Revision THA in patients with proximal femoral bone loss using Zweymüller SLR-Plus stem led to a high rate of osseointegration of the stem and good clinical results at long-term follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimum treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip with substantial bone defects remains controversial. A retrospective assessment was performed for 182 patients treated for PJI with a two-stage protocol from 2005 to 2015. Implant removal and debridement were followed by Girdlestone arthroplasty or spacer implantation. The results of the Girdlestone and spacer groups were compared. There were 71 cases that received spacers, and 111 Girdlestone procedures were performed. After the first stage, 26.37% of cultures were negative, and among patients with a detected pathogen, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism (41.79%). Acetabular and femoral bone defects, according to the Paprosky classification, were more severe in the Girdlestone group (P<0.05). During the follow-up (mean, 5.95 years), the overall incidence of complications was 21.42%. The mean Harris hip score was significantly lower in the Girdlestone group (68.39 vs 77.79; P<0.0001). The infection recurrence rate reached 8.79%. Despite satisfactory infection control, the number of complications and poor functional outcomes associated with resection arthroplasty indicate the necessity for development of different approaches for patients with advanced bone loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cortical bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty requires an adequate stabilization to achieve a durable implant fixation. This case series shall illustrate possible indications for the use of allogenic grafts in revision hip arthroplasty. Twelve patients with femoral bone loss were treated with allografts. In addition to established clinical scores, the radiological follow-ups were analyzed for hints of implants loosening and the osteointegration of the allografts. After a mean follow-up of 3.0 years the mHHS was 61.3 points and the UCLA 3.8. One patient showed a non-progressive radiolucency around the hip implant. The osteointegration of all allogenic grafts happened on time. Up to the last follow-up no revision surgery of the hip implants and the associated femoral bone graft was observed. Allogenic bone grafts present a method for biological stabilization in situations of large femoral cortical bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The porous coated cylindrical stem are one of the most popular option in the set of hip revison surgery. The poupose of this study is present the clinical and radiographic results of a group of patients treated with this stem. Material and Methods: Between 1997 and 2010, we retrospectively evaluated 150 stem in 148 patients. The indication for revisión was aseptic loosening in 88 cases (58.6%), septic loosening in 41 cases (27.3%), periprosthetic fracture in 14 cases (9.3%), failed hip ostesynthesis in 4 cases (2.6%) and stem fracture in 3 cases (2%). We followed the patient on average for 7.7 years. Results: We achived bone-ingrowth fixation in 135 patients (90 %,), fibrous tissue fixation in 12 (8%) and unstable fixation in 3 (2 %). The mean Harris hip score improved to 92 points at last follow-up. Three stem were revised (2%). One patient had revisión becouse of stem loosening. The other two becouse of deep infection required a 2 staged revision. Three patient (2%) had dislocation and was treated succesfully with closed reduction. Conclusion: The porous coated cylindrical stem is a predictable technique with excellent survival rates in the set of revisión hip surgery.

Background: Femoral bone deficiency is a challenging problem in revision femoral arthroplasty in younger patients. We evaluated outcomes of revision femoral arthroplasty using a freeze-dried allograft prosthetic composite (APC).Methods: This was a retrospective review of 16 patients (12 men and 4 women) who had unilateral proximal femoral deficiencies (Paprosky type III B, 13 patients; type IV, 3 patients) revised with freeze-dried APC. Follow-up at mean 7 years included assessment with Merle D'Aubigné score and radiographs.Results: At follow-up, the average hip score was improved for pain, function, and range of motion. The 5-year graft survival was 87%, and the estimated median survival was 8.8 years. There were 3 patients who walked without support, 10 patients who walked unlimited distance with a cane, 2 patients who walked with 2 crutches, and 1 patient who walked with a walker. Radiographs showed nonunion at the graft-host junction in 3 hips (19%), but only 1 patient was symptomatic. Asymptomatic trochanteric nonunion was observed in 4 hips (25%). There was moderate graft resorption in 2 patients at 9 years after surgery and mild graft resorption in 1 graft at 7 years. There was subsidence of <2 cm in 2 patients and 3.5 cm in 1 patient.Conclusion: The present study showed acceptable results in treatment of major femoral deficiencies using freeze-dried APC in younger patients. Freeze-dried APC may be a useful for revision femoral arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rising number of primary total hip arthroplasty procedures being performed annually is assoaced with a concomitant increasing burden of revision total hip surgery. Acetabular and/or femoral bone loss encountered at the time of revison surgery can present a challenging problem. This brief review defines methods by which to classfiy bone loss patterns, presents options for treatment, and reports on clinical outcomes of different treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of total hip arthroplasties continues to increase each year, and with it grows the demand for surgeons prepared to manage complicated revisions. To date, the Paprosky classification system is the most commonly used, well described, and successfully implemented classification system for periprosthetic femoral bone loss. In this review, the Paprosky femoral bone loss classification is presented in detail, using illustrative examples of cases encountered by the contributing authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate results of 122 revision THAs using a 2nd generation modular femoral implant in 120 patients. Majority of cases had significant femoral bone loss. HHS improved from a pre-operative mean score of 46 to 88 points, and SF-36 scores improved from 31 to 44 points at 2- to 5-year follow-up. There were 18 cases of intraoperative fractures of which 10 were femur shaft, 7 trochanteric, and 1 acetabular. Dislocation incidence was 9% and overall survivorship at 5 years was 97%. Use of modular femoral implants provides versatility and simplification to restore stability, limb length and offset in patients undergoing femoral component revision, Additional steps need to be undertaken to minimize incidence of fracture and dislocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Femoral bone loss is frequently encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. The quality and quantity of remaining bone helps determine the best method for reconstruction. Extensively porous-coated cylindrical stems or titanium fluted tapered devices that achieve fixation in the diaphysis have both demonstrated excellent longterm survivorship. Titanium fluted tapered stems with a modular proximal body allow for more accurate leg length, offset, and version adjustments independent of the distal stem which may optimise hip biomechanics. Intraoperative fractures are more common with cylindrical stems and subsidence with tapered stems, particularly monoblock designs and in both dislocation continues to be one of the most common postoperative complications. In salvage situations in which an ectatic femoral canal is unable to support an uncemented device, impaction bone grafting, allograft-prosthetic composite, or a segmental proximal femoral replacement may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone loss represents one of the greatest challenges in revision joint surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of both radiographic and clinical outcomes of eleven patients who underwent revision arthroplasty using a long extensively porous coated cylindrical femoral component. All patients' femurs presented with severe proximal femoral bone loss (Paprosky class IIIB and IV). With a mean follow-up of 8 years (2 to 14) we report no femoral revisions and one acetabular revision to a constrained cup secondary to instability. All patients were clinically and radiographically stable. We did not observe any issue with proximal stress shielding or component loosening. The article reports that in patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss, extensively porous-coated non-modular stems are a viable option offering stable and predictable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of tapered, fluted, modular, distally fixing stems has increased in femoral revision surgery. The goal of this retrospective study was to assess mid-term to long-term outcomes of this implant. Seventy-one hips in 70 patients with a mean age of 69 years were followed for an average of 10 years. Preoperative HHS averaged 50 and improved to 87 postoperatively. Seventy-nine percent hips had Paprosky type 3A or more bone-loss. All stems osseointegrated distally (100%). Two hips subsided > 5 mm but achieved secondary stability. Sixty-eight percent hips had evidence of bony reconstitution and 21% demonstrated diaphyseal stress-shielding. One stem fractured near its modular junction and was revised with a mechanical failure rate of 1.4%. Distal fixation and clinical improvement were reproducibly achieved with this stem design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We sought to identify outcomes of the Restoration Modular Hip System in cases of severe femoral bone stock deficiency. We performed a retrospective review of 55 revTHAs with a mean follow-up of 32 months (24-60 months). Outcomes included the WOMAC and HHS. Preoperative bone loss was categorized as Paprosky 3A (n = 13), 3B (n = 14), and 4 (n = 17). Periprosthetic fractures were classified as Vancouver B2 (n = 6) and B3 (n = 5). 53 of 55 stems were in situ at time of final review. WOMAC improved from 46 ± 18 to 70 ± 22 and HHS improved from 47 ± 15 to 78 ± 15. Complications were identified in 9 patients, which included dislocation (3), subsidence (2), infection (2), and periprosthetic fracture (2). In cases of significant proximal femoral bone deficiency, this stem demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes with good results at short-term follow up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classification systems for femoral revision of a failed THA fail to address several of the more critical determinants. The aim of the present study was to assess the reliability of a simplified algorithm for decision making during cementless reconstruction for femoral loosening with respect to stem length, stem design and the need for an extended trochanteric osteotomy. Four observers with different levels of clinical experience blindly assessed 40 X-rays of hips scheduled for a femoral revision. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability of 4 radiographic criteria were assessed: 1) diaphyseal bone loss extension to the isthmus; 2) proximal femoral remodelling; 3) presence of cement; and 4) cortical thickness. Inter-observer agreement relating to the four criteria was good (κ = 0.66) for the extension to isthmus, moderate (κ = 0.57) for proximal femoral remodelling and very good for presence of cement (κ = 1) and cortical thickness (κ= 0.88). Intra-observer agreement was good for extension to isthmus and proximal femoral remodelling and very good for presence of cement and cortical thickness. Based on these criteria, an algorithm has been developed to describe 4 reconstruction options. The algorithm seems reliable for decision making during femoral cementless revision, but research into comparison with intraoperative findings is still required. Level of evidence: Level II, Development of diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of primary total knee arthroplasties increase, revision procedures with massive bone defects will also increase. Although multiple reconstructive options have been recommended, porous tantalum metaphyseal cones have the advantage of improved biological fixation because of their high porosity, interconnected pore space, and a modulus of elasticity similar to that of cancellous bone. Such features allow tantalum cones to fill bone defects while tolerating physiological loads. Indications for porous tantalum metaphyseal cones include patients with large contained or uncontained osseous defects that are typically categorized as Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute type 2B or greater. The surgical technique is simpler than structural allograft reconstructions with decreased preparation time, resulting in a possible decrease in infection rates. The modularity of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones allows the surgeon to choose a size and position that best fits the individual defect encountered. Moreover, tantalum cones can be used with any revision system. Short-term clinical follow-up indicates that porous tantalum metaphyseal cones effectively provide structural support with the potential for long-term biological fixation and durable reconstructions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

During the past 30 years, we have routinely used distal diaphyseal fixation achieved with cylindrical, extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision. We report survivorship data for 1000 cementless femoral revision arthroplasties performed at our institution between 1980 and 2010 using this technique. To implant the stems, we attempted to achieve 5-7 cm of scratch fit in the distal diaphyseal segment. Kaplan–Meier survivorship was 94.5 ± 2.3% at 15 years when femoral rerevision for any reason was used as an end point. We have had 27 stems undergo rerevision: 14 for aseptic loosening, 7 for implant fracture, 4 for infection, and 2 in conjunction with periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. Bypassing proximal defects with the use of distal ingrowth fixation is a durable and reliable option in the revision setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) we developed a technique involving impaction allografting with intramedullary mesh moulded around the revision stem, to prevent excessive cement penetration of the allograft. The length of the revision stem was determined by the extent of femoral bone loss. Between 1986 and 1998, 32 such procedures were undertaken on 28 patients. The mean pre-operative HHS for function was 22 (range 5 to 42), improving to 41 (range 12 to 47) at final follow-up. Only 1 patient presented with aseptic loosening after revision at 147 months (12.2 years). The 12.5 year survivorship for the stem was 92.8%. The technique has provided stable and durable reconstruction, with good new bone formation visible radiologically. It is technically demanding and time consuming, but it avoids the previously published problem of massive subsidence within the bone graft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite remarkable advances in the field of revision surgery during the last decades, the reconstruction in patients with massive femoral bone loss is still challenging. Proximal femoral replacement (megaprosthesis) and the use of an allograft-prosthesis composite are 2 valuable options for managing severe proximal femoral bone loss conditions. Although an allograft-prosthesis composite has several advantages, such as a potential restoration of proximal femoral bone mass and providing a site for soft-tissue attachment, a proximal femoral replacement has the benefit of being more readily available, technically less demanding, and more expeditious to implant than allograft-prosthesis composite. The outcome of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic condition is dependent on several different issues, including patient selection, appropriate preoperative planning and templating, proper surgical techniques, and good postoperative care. We believe that proximal femoral replacement is a viable option for reconstruction of elderly and sedentary patients with severe femoral bone deficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant femoral bone loss can be encountered in the multiply revised patient. Deficient proximal bone requires either a bulk allograft or a femoral component that allows stable distal fixation. Extensively coated stems have shown excellent results for many revisions but have shown higher rates of failure among patients with femoral remodeling in retroversion, an enlarged endosteal diameter, or an ectatic canal. A modular tapered stem is an alternative in this subset of patients. A modular tapered implant provides axial and rotational stability through the use of distal splines while the proximal body segments can allow independent adjustment of leg length, offset, and anteversion. We previously reported the 1- to 4-year (average 2 years) results of modular tapered femoral prosthesis in cementless femoral revisions. In the previous study there were 16 patients all with Type IIIB or IV Paprosky femurs. This is a follow-up of that article reporting on 24 patients, all with Type IIIB or IV Paprosky femurs with a follow-up of 2 to 5 years (average 3 years). We revised one component for subsidence, one component was revised for fracture at the modular junction, and one component was revised for sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Paprosky classification provides a straightforward algorithm for defining bone loss and directing treatment for femoral revision. The purpose of this study was to test the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of this system. Four arthroplasty surgeons reviewed radiographs of 205 consecutive femoral revisions. For each radiograph, the pattern of femoral bone loss was classified by Paprosky type on two separate occasions. A kappa value was used to calculate the reliability, which demonstrated an inter-observer reliability of 0.61, indicating substantial agreement between surgeons. The intra-observer reliability for each of the 4 participating surgeons was 0.81, 0.78, 0.76, and 0.75, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement. There is substantial agreement among experienced arthroplasty surgeons when using the Paprosky Classification to characterize femoral bone loss. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]