Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft.

UNLABELLED: Substantial bone loss is frequently encountered with revision hip arthroplasty. A proximal femoral allograft may be used to reconstitute bone stock in the multiply revised femur with segmental bone loss of greater than 5 cm. We retrospectively reviewed 92 patients (93 hips) who underwent such proximal femoral allografts. The average age at the surgery was 61 years. The average number of previous revision procedures was 2.5. Six patients were lost to followup. Thirty-four of 36 deceased patients had the original proximal femoral allograft at the time of death. The minimum followup for the 50 remaining patients was 15 years (average, 16.2 years; range, 15-22 years). Analysis included survivorship and radiographic assessment. Of the 50 patients reviewed, two had a failed reconstruction due to infection, six for aseptic loosening, three for nonunion, and four for dislocation. Revision of the proximal femoral allograft for all reasons excluding the acetabulum was performed in seven patients. At last followup, 42 patients (84%) had a well-functioning construct. Proximal femoral allograft for revision hip arthroplasty in femoral segmental bone loss is a durable alternative in most patients for a complex problem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Risk of periprosthetic fracture after anterior femoral notching.

BACKGROUND: Notching of the anterior femoral cortex in distal femoral fractures following TKR has been observed clinically and studied biomechanically. It has been hypothesized that femoral notching weakens the cortex of the femur, which can predispose to femoral fractures in the early postoperative period. We examined the relationship between notching of the anterior femoral cortex during total knee replacement (TKR) and supracondylar fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postoperative lateral radiographs of 200 TKRs were reviewed at an average of 9 (6-15) years postoperatively. 72 knees (41%) showed notching of the anterior femoral cortex. Notches were classified into 4 grades using the Tayside classification as follows. Grade I: violation of the outer table of the anterior femoral cortex; grade II: violation of the outer and the inner table of the anterior femoral cortex; grade III: violation up to 25% of the medullary canal (from the inner table to the center of the medullary canal); grade IV: violation up to 50% of the medullary canal (from the inner table to the center of the medullary canal) and unclassifiable. RESULTS: The interobserver variability of the classification system using Cohen's Kappa score was found to be substantially reliable. 3 of the 200 TKRs sustained later supracondylar fractures. One of these patients had grade II femoral notching and the other 2 showed no notching. The patient with femoral notching sustained a supracondylar fracture of the femur following a simple fall at home 9 years after TKR. INTERPRETATION: There is no relationship between minimal anterior femoral notching and supracondylar fracture of the femur in TKR.

Day-case surgery for total hip and knee replacement: How safe and effective is it?

Multimodal protocols for pain control, blood loss management and thromboprophylaxis have been shown to benefit patients by being more effective and as safe (fewer iatrogenic complications) as conventional protocols.Proper patient selection and education, multimodal protocols and a well-defined clinical pathway are all key for successful day-case arthroplasty.By potentially being more effective, cheaper than and as safe as inpatient arthroplasty, day-case arthroplasty might be beneficial for patients and healthcare systems. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:130-135. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170031.

Proximal femoral allograft treatment of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Surgical technique.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty are becoming more prevalent. When a fracture occurs in a femur with substantial proximal bone deficiency, the surgical options for revision are limited. One option includes the use of a proximal femoral allograft. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the results and complications of the use of a proximal femoral allograft to treat twenty-five Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic fractures in twenty-four patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.1 years. Clinical results were graded with use of the Harris hip score. Radiographs were assessed for evidence of trochanteric union, host-allograft union, allograft resorption, and component loosening or fracture. Failure of the procedure was defined as the need for revision surgery requiring graft removal. RESULTS: The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 70.8. At the time of the final follow-up, twenty-one of the twenty-four patients reported no or mild pain and twenty-three patients were able to walk; fifteen required a walking aid. The greater trochanter united in seventeen of the twenty-five hips (68%), and osseous union of the allograft to the host femur occurred in twenty hips (80%). There was mild graft resorption in four hips and moderate graft resorption in two. Four (16%) of the twenty-five hips required repeat revision. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a proximal femoral allograft for the treatment of a Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture can provide a satisfactory result in terms of pain relief and function at five years.

Surgical options for articular defects of the knee.

Cartilage and osteochondral defects of the knee can in most cases be treated with total knee replacement in the elderly population. However, these lesions pose a difficult treatment problem in the younger patient. A number of surgical options are available today to address this increasingly common condition and each has its own indications and limitations. This article reviews debridement and microfracture, fixation, metallic spacing devices, autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transplantation, fresh cadaveric allografts and osteotomies. In addition, possible future developments are discussed.

Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty.

The goals of acetabular revision surgery are to restore the anatomy and achieve stable fixation for the new acetabular component. The existing bone stock and the type of defect are determining factors in the surgical decision making. When necessary, and especially in younger patients, attempts should be made to restore the bone stock by grafting. The advent of modern reconstruction options, like the trabecular metal revision system and the cup-cage construct, provide more options in addressing the management of severe defects. Trabecular metal has a porosity similar to bone and provides an environment more favorable to bone graft remodeling than conventional metals. We present an overview of our experience and current approach to acetabular revision. In addition, we report our preliminary results with trabecular metal cups and trabecular metal cup-cage constructs used in conjunction with bone graft for addressing major bone defects.