Over the past 30 years there have been many improvements in implant fixation, correction of deformity, improved polyethylene wear, and survival after knee replacement. The work over the last decade has focused on less invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain management protocols, more rapid functional recovery and reduced length of stay, aiming to minimise the side effects of treatment while maintaining function and implant durability. When combined and standardised these pre-, intra- and post-operative factors have now facilitated outpatient knee replacement procedures for unicompartmental replacement, patella femoral arthroplasty and total knee replacement (TKR).

We have found liposomal bupivacaine, with potential for longer therapeutic action, to be a helpful adjunct and describe our current pain management program. The next step in our multimodal program is to improve the duration of patient satisfaction and reduce cost and length of stay after TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):7–9.

Cartilage defects of the hip cause significant pain and may lead to arthritic changes that necessitate hip replacement. We propose the use of fresh osteochondral allografts as an option for the treatment of such defects in young patients. Here we present the results of fresh osteochondral allografts for cartilage defects in 17 patients in a prospective study. The underlying diagnoses for the cartilage defects were osteochondritis dissecans in eight and avascular necrosis in six. Two had Legg-Calve-Perthes and one a femoral head fracture. Pre-operatively, an MRI was used to determine the size of the cartilage defect and the femoral head diameter. All patients underwent surgical hip dislocation with a trochanteric slide osteotomy for placement of the allograft. The mean age at surgery was 25.9 years (17 to 44) and mean follow-up was 41.6 months (3 to 74). The mean Harris hip score was significantly better after surgery (p < 0.01) and 13 patients had fair to good outcomes. One patient required a repeat allograft, one patient underwent hip replacement and two patients are awaiting hip replacement. Fresh osteochondral allograft is a reasonable treatment option for hip cartilage defects in young patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Supple A):11–16.

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):17–21.

Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip replacements (THR). Hence, there is great interest in maximising stability to prevent this complication. Head size has been recognised to have a strong influence on the risk of dislocation post-operatively. As femoral head size increases, stability is augmented, secondary to an increase in impingement-free range of movement. Larger head sizes also greatly increase the ‘jump distance’ required for the head to dislocate in an appropriately positioned cup. Level-one studies support the use of larger diameter heads as they decrease the risk of dislocation following primary and revision THR. Highly cross-linked polyethylene has allowed us to increase femoral head size, without a marked increase in wear. However, the thin polyethylene liners necessary to accommodate larger heads may increase the risk of liner fracture and larger heads have also been implicated in causing soft-tissue impingement resulting in groin pain. Larger diameter heads also impart larger forces on the femoral trunnion, which may contribute to corrosion, metal release, and adverse local tissue reactions. Alternative large bearings including large ceramic heads and dual mobility bearings may mitigate some of these risks, and several of these devices have been used with clinical success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):23–6.

Degenerative problems of the hip in patients with childhood and adult onset neuromuscular disorders can be challenging to treat. Many orthopaedic surgeons are reluctant to recommend total hip replacement (THR) for patients with underlying neuromuscular disorders due to the perceived increased risks of dislocation, implant loosening, and lack of information about the functional outcomes and potential benefits of these procedures in these patients. Modular femoral components and alternative bearings which facilitate the use of large femoral heads, constrained acetabular components and perhaps more importantly, a better understanding about the complications and outcomes of THR in the patient with neuromuscular disorders, make this option viable. This paper will review the current literature and our experience with THR in the more frequently encountered neuromuscular disorders.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):27–31.

Direct anterior approaches to the hip have gained popularity as a minimally invasive method when performing primary total hip replacement (THR). A retrospective review of a single institution joint registry was performed in order to compare patient outcomes after THR using the Anterior Supine Intermuscular (ASI) approach versus a more conventional direct lateral approach. An electronic database identified 1511 patients treated with 1690 primary THRs between January 2006 and December 2010. Our results represent a summary of findings from our previously published work. We found that patients that underwent an ASI approach had faster functional recovery and higher Harris hip scores in the early post-operative period when compared with patients who had a direct lateral approach The overall complication rate in our ASI group was relatively low (1.7%) compared with other series using the same approach. The most frequent complication was early periprosthetic femoral fractures (0.9%). The dislocation rate in our series was 0.4% and the prosthetic joint infection rate was 0.1%. We suggest that the ASI approach is acceptable and safe when performing THR and encourages early functional recovery of our patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96- B(11 Suppl A):32–5.

Acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem facing the revision total hip replacement surgeon. Reconstruction of the acetabulum depends on the presence of anterosuperior and posteroinferior pelvic column support for component fixation and stability. The Paprosky classification is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Augments serve the function of either providing primary construct stability or supplementary fixation.

When a pelvic discontinuity is encountered we advocate the use of an acetabular distraction technique with a jumbo cup and modular porous metal acetabular augments for the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss and associated chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):36–42.

Surgical interventions consisting of internal fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However, in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):43–7.

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.

Non-modular tapered fluted, titanium stems are available for use in femoral revision. The combination of taper and flutes on the stem provides axial and rotational stability, respectively. The material and surface properties of the stem promotes bone on-growth. If the surgeon is confident and reasonably experienced in the surgical use of this sort of design and the case is relatively straightforward, a non-modular design is effective. It also potentially reduces implant inventory, and circumvents the potential problems of taper junction corrosion and fatigue fracture. There are reports of excellent survival, good clinical and functional results and evidence of subsequent increase in proximal bone stock.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):56–9.

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5.

The common recommended treatment for infected total hip replacement is two-staged exchange including removal of all components. However, removal of well-fixed femoral stems can result in structural bone damage. We recently reported on an alternative treatment of partial two-stage exchange used in selected cases, in which a well-fixed femoral stem was left and only the acetabular component removed, the joint space was debrided thoroughly, an antibiotic-laden polymethylmethacrylate spacer was moulded using a bulb-type syringe and placed in the acetabulum, intravenous antibiotics were administered during the interval, and delayed re-implantation was performed. In 19 patients treated with this technique from January 2000 to January 2011, 89% were free of infection at a mean follow-up of four years (2 to 11). Since then, disposable silicone moulds have become available to fabricate spacers in separate femoral and head units. The head spacer mould, which incorporates various neck taper adapter options, greatly facilitates the technique of partial two-stage exchange. We report our early experience using disposable silicone head spacer moulds for partial two-stage exchange in seven patients with infected primary hip replacements.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):66–9

A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.

A pelvic discontinuity occurs when the superior and inferior parts of the hemi-pelvis are no longer connected, which is difficult to manage when associated with a failed total hip replacement. Chronic pelvic discontinuity is found in 0.9% to 2.1% of hip revision cases with risk factors including severe pelvic bone loss, female gender, prior pelvic radiation and rheumatoid arthritis. Common treatment options include: pelvic plating with allograft, cage reconstruction, custom triflange implants, and porous tantalum implants with modular augments. The optimal technique is dependent upon the degree of the discontinuity, the amount of available bone stock and the likelihood of achieving stable healing between the two segments. A method of treating pelvic discontinuity using porous tantalum components with a distraction technique that achieves both initial stability and subsequent long-term biological fixation is described.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):73–7.

Total knee replacement (TKR) smart tibial trials have load-bearing sensors which will show quantitative compartment pressure values and femoral-tibial tracking patterns. Without smart trials, surgeons rely on feel and visual estimation of imbalance to determine if the knee is optimally balanced. Corrective soft-tissue releases are performed with minimal feedback as to what and how much should be released. The smart tibial trials demonstrate graphically where and how much imbalance is present, so that incremental releases can be performed. The smart tibial trials now also incorporate accelerometers which demonstrate the axial alignment. This now allows the surgeon the option to perform a slight recut of the tibia or femur to provide soft-tissue balance without performing soft-tissue releases. Using a smart tibial trial to assist with soft-tissue releases or bone re-cuts, improved patient outcomes have been demonstrated at one year in a multicentre study of 135 patients (135 knees).

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):78–83.

Patellofemoral complications are common after total knee replacement (TKR). Leaving the patellar unsurfaced after TKR may lead to complications such as anterior knee pain, and re-operation to surface it. Complications after patellar resurfacing include patellar fracture, aseptic loosening, patellar instability, polyethylene wear, patellar clunk and osteonecrosis. Historically, patellar complications account for one of the larger proportions of causes of failure in TKR, however, with contemporary implant designs, complication rates have decreased. Most remaining failures relate to patellofemoral tracking. Understanding the causes of patellofemoral maltracking is essential to prevent these complications as well as manage them when they occur.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):84–6.

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing primary cementless total knee replacement (TKR) using porous tantalum performed by a group of surgical trainees. Clinical and radiological follow-up involved 79 females and 26 males encompassing 115 knees. The mean age was 66.9 years (36 to 85). Mean follow-up was 7 years (2 to 11). Tibial and patellar components were porous tantalum monoblock implants, and femoral components were posterior stabilised (PS) in design with cobalt–chromium fibre mesh. Radiological assessments were made for implant positioning, alignment, radiolucencies, lysis, and loosening. There was 95.7% survival of implants. There was no radiological evidence of loosening and no osteolysis found. No revisions were performed for aseptic loosening. Average tibial component alignment was 1.4° of varus (4°of valgus to 9° varus), and 6.2° (3° anterior to 15° posterior) of posterior slope. Mean femoral component alignment was 6.6° (1° to 11°) of valgus. Mean tibiofemoral alignment was 5.6° of valgus (7° varus to 16° valgus). Patellar tilt was a mean of 2.4° lateral (5° medial to 28° lateral). Patient satisfaction with improvement in pain was 91%. Cementless TKR incorporating porous tantalum yielded good clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean of follow-up of seven-years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):87–92.

The use of hinged implants in primary total knee replacement (TKR) should be restricted to selected indications and mainly for elderly patients. Potential indications for a rotating hinge or pure hinge implant in primary TKR include: collateral ligament insufficiency, severe varus or valgus deformity (> 20°) with necessary relevant soft-tissue release, relevant bone loss including insertions of collateral ligaments, gross flexion-extension gap imbalance, ankylosis, or hyperlaxity. Although data reported in the literature are inconsistent, clinical results depend on implant design, proper technical use, and adequate indications. We present our experience with a specific implant type that we have used for over 30 years and which has given our elderly patients good mid-term results. Because revision of implants with long cemented stems can be very challenging, an effort should be made in the future to use shorter stems in modular versions of hinged implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):93–5.

A national, multi-centre study was designed in which a questionnaire quantifying the degree of patient satisfaction and residual symptoms in patients following total knee replacement (TKR) was administered by an independent, blinded third party survey centre. A total of 90% of patients reported satisfaction with the overall functioning of their knee, but 66% felt their knee to be ‘normal’, with the reported incidence of residual symptoms and functional problems ranging from 33% to 54%. Female patients and patients from low-income households had increased odds of reporting dissatisfaction. Neither the use of contemporary implant designs (gender-specific, high-flex, rotating platform) or custom cutting guides (CCG) with a neutral mechanical axis target improved patient-perceived outcomes. However, use of a CCG to perform a so-called kinematically aligned TKR showed a trend towards more patients reporting their knee to feel ‘normal’ when compared with a so called mechanically aligned TKR

This data shows a degree of dissatisfaction and residual symptoms following TKR, and that several recent modifications in implant design and surgical technique have not improved the current situation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):96–100.

Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):101–4.

There are many reasons why a total knee replacement (TKR) may fail and qualify for revision. Successful revision surgery depends as much on accurate assessment of the problem TKR as it does on revision implant design and surgical technique. Specific modes of failure require specific surgical solutions. Causes of failure are often presented as a list or catalogue, without a system or process for making a decision. In addition, strict definitions and consensus on modes of failure are lacking in published series and registry data. How we approach the problem TKR is an essential but neglected aspect of understanding knee replacement surgery. It must be carried out systematically, comprehensively and efficiently. Eight modes of failure are described: 1) sepsis; 2) extensor discontinuity; 3) stiffness; 4) tibial- femoral instability; 5) patellar tracking; 6) aseptic loosening and osteolysis; 7) periprosthetic fracture and 8) component breakage. A ninth ‘category’, unexplained pain is an indication for further investigation but not surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):105–11.

Instability after total knee replacement (TKR) accounts for 10% to 22% of revision procedures. All patients who present for evaluation of instability require a thorough history to be taken and physical examination, as well as appropriate imaging. Deep periprosthetic infection must be ruled out by laboratory testing and an aspiration of the knee must be carried out. The three main categories of instability include flexion instability, extension instability (symmetric and asymmetric), and genu recurvatum. Most recently, the aetiologies contributing to, and surgical manoeuvres required to correct, flexion instability have been elucidated. While implant design and patient-related factors may certainly contribute to the aetiology, surgical technique is also a significant factor in all forms of post-operative instability.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):112–4.

Stems may improve fixation and stability of components during revision total knee replacement. However, the choice between cemented and cementless stems is not a clear one. Cemented stems offer several advantages in terms of versatility, mechanical stability, surgical technique and clinical outcome over their cementless counterpart.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):115–7.

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21.

Although the vast majority of patients that undergo total knee replacement have satisfactory outcomes with a generally low complication rate, occasionally a patient will be encountered that has had multiple failed surgeries, and now reaches a crossroad as to whether limb salvage will be acceptable or not.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):122–4.