Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions

A UK multicentre cohort study of clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement for nononcological conditions : the EndoProsthetic Replacement for nonOncological conditions (EPRO) study

Aims

This study aims to determine the outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for nononcological conditions.

Methods

This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study across six UK centres. The primary outcome was the local complication rate. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusions, critical care requirements, return to baseline mobility and residence status, systemic complications, reoperations, and mortality rates. Implant survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology with local complication as the endpoint, and was compared by surgical indication, stem length, and construct stem ratio (CSR).

Results

There were 230 PFRs in 226 patients with a median age of 76.0 years (IQR 66.9 to 83.7). Indications were periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 62; 27%), infected revision arthroplasty (n = 55; 24%), chronic/failed trauma (n = 41; 18%), aseptic revision arthroplasty (n = 38; 17%), acute trauma (n = 33; 14%), and complex primary arthroplasty (n = 1; 0.5%). Median follow-up was 4.2 years (IQR 1.9 to 7.2). The local complication rate was 27% (n = 62). The most common local complications were dislocation (n = 27; 12%) and periprosthetic joint infection (n = 22; 10%). Blood transfusion was required in 86 patients (37%). Overall, 90 patients (39%) required critical care facilities. A return to baseline mobility and residence was observed in 127 (55%) and 200 (87%) patients, respectively. The six-month systemic complication rate was 9% (n = 21) and the reoperation rate was 21% (n = 48). The 30-day and one-year mortality rates were 2% (n = 4) and 8% (n = 19), respectively. The two-year implant survival rate was 78.0% (SE 2.8). Survival rates did not differ significantly by surgical indication, stem length, or CSR.

Conclusion

This is the largest study of PFR for nononcological conditions. Due to high local complication and reoperation rates, it should be considered a salvage option for complex hip reconstruction and patients should be counselled appropriately.

Surgical Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Hip and Knee Megaprostheses

Periprosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after the megaprosthetic reconstruction of oncologic and non-oncologic bone defects of including the knee or hip joint. Due to the relative rarity of these procedures, however, optimal management is debatable. Considering the expanding use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty and the high revision burden in orthopedic oncology, the risk of PJI is likely to increase over the coming years. In this non-systematic review article, we present and discuss current management options and the associated results focusing on studies from the last 15 years and studies from dedicated centers or study groups. The indication, surgical details and results in controlling infection are presented for debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) procedure with an exchange of the modular components, single-stage implant exchange, two-stage exchanges and ablative procedures.

Evaluation of time to reimplantation as a risk factor in two-stage revision with static spacers for periprosthetic knee joint infection

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the time to reimplantation (TTR) during two-stage revision using static spacers with regard to treatment success and function in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee.

METHODS

163 patients (median age 72 years, 72 women) who underwent two-stage exchange for chronic knee PJI between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (based on the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria). A cutoff TTR for increased risk of reinfection was identified using the maximally selected log-rank statistic. Infection control, aseptic revisions and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Adjustment for confounding factors-the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and C-reactive protein (CRP)-was done with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

When TTR exceeded 94 days, the adjusted hazard of reinfection was increased 2.8-fold (95% CI 1.4-5.7; p = 0.0036). The reinfection-free rate was 67% (95% CI 52-79%) after 2 years and 33% (95% CI 11-57%) after 5 years for a longer TTR compared to 89% (95% CI 81-94%) and 80% (95% CI 69-87%) at 2 and 5 years, respectively, for a shorter TTR. Adjusted overall survival and number of aseptic revisions did not differ between the longer TTR and shorter TTR groups. Maximum knee flexion was 90° (IQR 84-100) for a longer TTR and 95° (IQR 90-100) for a shorter TTR (p = 0.0431), with no difference between the groups in Oxford Knee Score. Baseline characteristics were similar (body mass index, age, previous surgeries, microorganisms) for the two groups, except that there was a higher CCI (median 4 vs. 3) and higher CRP (median 3.7 vs 2.6 mg/dl) in the longer TTR group.

CONCLUSION

A long TTR is sometimes unavoidable in clinical practice, but surgeons should be aware of a potentially higher risk of reinfection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

Early radiological outcomes of a fully porous bridging collar in lower-limb endoprosthetic reconstructions: a case-matched retrospective series to assess osseointegration

BACKGROUND

Limb-salvage surgery involving the utilization of endoprosthetic replacements is commonly employed following segmental bone resection for primary and secondary bone tumors. This study aimed to evaluate whether a fully porous bridging collar promotes early osseous integration in endoprosthetic replacements.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of all lower-limb endoprostheses utilizing a fully porous endosteal bridging collar design. We matched this cohort with a conventional extra-osteal non-porous fully hydroxyapatite-coated grooved collar cohort according to surgical indication, implant type, resection length, age, and follow-up time. At 6, 12, and 24 months post-implantation, radiographs were assessed for the number of cortices with or without osseointegration on orthogonal radiographs. Each radiograph was scored on a scale of -4 to + 4 for the number of cortices bridging the ongrowth between the bone and the collar of the prosthesis. Implant survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the mean number of osseointegrated cortices at each time point between the collar designs was compared using a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were retrospectively identified and analyzed. After exclusion, 40 patients with porous bridging collars matched with 40 patients with conventional extra-osteal non-porous collars were included in the study (n = 80). The mean age was 63.4 years (range 16-91 years); there were 37 males and 43 females. The groups showed no difference in implant survival (P = 0.54). The mean number of cortices with radiographic ongrowth for the porous bridging collar and non-porous collar groups was 2.1 and 0.3, respectively, at 6-month (P < 0.0001), 2.4 and 0.5, respectively, at 12-month (P = 0.044), and 3.2 and -0.2, respectively, at 24-month (P = 0.18) radiological follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that fully porous bridging collars increased the number of cortices, with evidence of bone ongrowth between 6 and 24 months post-implantation. By contrast, extra-osteal collars exhibited reduced evidence of ongrowth between 6 and 24 months post-implantation. In the medium term, the use of a fully porous bridging collar may translate to a reduced incidence of aseptic loosening.

Megaprosthesis use in Paprosky III/IV femoral defects in non-oncological patients: analysis of survival, clinical, and functional outcomes after an average follow-up of five years

PURPOSE

To determine the survival and patient-reported outcomes in non-oncological patients treated with proximal femoral resection (PFR) using MEG for femoral reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 16 patients. Demographic variables and complications developed were analyzed. Clinical-functional outcomes were measured using the modified Harris score (mHSS), numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. MEG survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 5 years (range, 1-9). The 75% of patients were overweight and women with an average age of 74.2 ± 5.9-years (BMI of 28.5 ± 4.2 kg/m2). The main cause of MEG was periprosthetic infection (43.7%). The 50% of patients had post-surgical complications regarding with MEG, being the most frequent seromas and MEG dislocation. Implant survival was 93.4% and 80.9% at 3 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The functional results at the end of the follow-up with respect to the pre-surgical state improved from 9.5 ± 2.6 to 3 ± 0.9 mean NPRS and 26.5 ± 6.8 to 69.5 ± 13.5 mean mHHS, p < 0.001, respectively. The mean MSTS score was 68.1% that these results were considered excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The MEG for reconstruct III-IV femoral defects is a good therapeutic option that offers an acceptable clinical-functional result. Short-term and medium-term survival was greater than 80%. The most frequent complications are seromas and MEG dislocation. The use of constrained liner and abductor system reconstruction is essential to prevent the dislocation.

Does a novel bridging collar in endoprosthetic replacement optimise the mechanical environment for osseointegration? A finite element study

Introduction: Limb-salvage surgery using endoprosthetic replacements (EPRs) is frequently used to reconstruct segmental bone defects, but the reconstruction longevity is still a major concern. In EPRs, the stem-collar junction is the most critical region for bone resorption. We hypothesised that an in-lay collar would be more likely to promote bone ongrowth in Proximal Femur Reconstruction (PFR), and we tested this hypothesis through validated Finite Element (FE) analyses simulating the maximum load during walking. Methods: We simulated three different femur reconstruction lengths (proximal, mid-diaphyseal, and distal). For each reconstruction length one in-lay and one traditional on-lay collar model was built and compared. All reconstructions were virtually implanted in a population-average femur. Personalised Finite Element models were built from Computed Tomography for the intact case and for all reconstruction cases, including contact interfaces where appropriate. We compared the mechanical environment in the in-lay and on-lay collar configurations, through metrics of reconstruction safety, osseointegration potential, and risk of long-term bone resorption due to stress-shielding. Results: In all models, differences with respect to intact conditions were localized at the inner bone-implant interface, being more marked in the collar-bone interface. In proximal and mid-diaphyseal reconstructions, the in-lay configuration doubled the area in contact at the bone-collar interface with respect to the on-lay configuration, showed less critical values and trends of contact micromotions, and consistently showed higher (roughly double) volume percentages of predicted bone apposition and reduced (up to one-third) percentages of predicted bone resorption. In the most distal reconstruction, results for the in-lay and on-lay configurations were generally similar and showed overall less favourable maps of the bone remodelling tendency. Discussion: In summary, the models corroborate the hypothesis that an in-lay collar, by realising a more uniform load transfer into the bone with a more physiological pattern, creates an advantageous mechanical environment at the bone-collar interface, compared to an on-lay design. Therefore, it could significantly increase the survivorship of endo-prosthetic replacements.

The major proximal femoral defects: megaprosthesis in non oncological patients - A case series

We identified 39 patients (23 female and 16 male) underwent hip revisions through mega-prosthesis. The most common causes were periprosthetic fractures, periprosthetic osteolysis and consequences of infected arthroplasty. The average follow-up was 5 years (2.1 to 6.5), and average age was 69 years (47 to 78). At the final follow-up all the implants resulted functional and osteointegrated. The Merle D'Aubignè and Postel hip rating scale was used for the evaluation, better results were observed in periprosthetic fractures. Postoperative complications occurred in eight patients. Thus, megaprosthesis were a reasonable surgical option in the management of major femoral defects.

Favorable mid-to-long-term results of impaction bone grafting using a fresh frozen allograft bone with cemented stem for the treatment of Paprosky IV femoral bone defects

BACKGROUND

Femoral revision surgery in patients with substantial bone loss is challenging. Impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem can be a good solution for reconstruction of the femur with poor bone stock and extensive bone loss. This study aimed to evaluate the mid-to-long-term clinical and radiographic results of impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem for Paprosky IV femoral bone defects.

METHODS

Thirteen patients (13 hips) who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem and were followed up for at least 5 years were enrolled in this study. In all patients, a sufficient amount of fresh frozen bone of good quality was used. When cortical segmental defects were present, peripheral reinforcement with metal mesh and strut allograft was performed. The average follow-up duration was 11.1 (range, 5.3-15.1) years. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were reviewed at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The average Harris hip score was 82.5 (range, 79-94), and the average University of California, Los Angeles activity score was 5.6 (range, 4-8) at the final follow-up. Radiographic assessment revealed an average femoral component subsidence level of 0.67 (range, 0.05-2.81) mm. There were no complications, except one case (7.6%) of periprosthetic fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Impaction bone grafting using a cemented stem yielded excellent mid-to-long-term outcomes. It is a reliable technique for Paprosky IV femoral bone defects, and even when severe femoral cortical bone defects are present, long-term stability can be obtained using a metal mesh and/or strut allograft.

Distal femur complex fractures in elderly patients treated with megaprosthesis: Results in a case series of 11 patients

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of complex fractures of the distal femur in the elderly is controversial. Osteoporosis and pre-existent osteoarthritis are common comorbidities in the elderly which add to the need for early walking and rapid restoration of function and also pose significant obstacles to achievement of satisfactory results with standard fixation techniques. Recently, several authors have suggested that primary arthroplasty could be a viable alternative option to standard fixation techniques in selected patients with complex distal femur fractures.

AIM

To present our experience with 11 cases of distal femur fractures treated with knee arthroplasty and large femoral resection in a population of patients over the age of 85.

METHODS

Data from 11 consecutive patients (10 females, 1 male) presenting with acute intra-articular supracondylar or intercondylar distal femur fractures and with pre-existent primary osteoarthritis who were treated with primary knee arthroplasty were recorded. We collected standard demographic data, comorbidities and patient reported outcomes including Visual Analogical Scale (VAS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Barthel's Index. Post-operative joint range of motion (ROM) and standard radiographic data were also collected.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 23.2 mo, all of the implants were well-positioned and osteointegrated. Furthermore, all the patients were alive and walking either independently or with walking aids. There was a marked improvement in pain (VAS 4.5 postop vs 1.9 at the last follow-up), OKS score (29.5 postop vs 36.81 at the last follow-up), ROM (96.2° postop vs 102° at the last follow-up) and restoration of pre-injury ambulatory status (average Barthel Index 77.3). The radiographic evaluations showed good restoration of the articular geometry. No deaths and no complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we believe that knee megaprosthesis in the case of complex fractures of the distal femur is a valid surgical choice. This is particularly true in elderly patients with severe osteoporosis and pre-existing osteoarthritis. It is important to note that this surgery should be performed by surgeons with proven experience in prosthetic hip and knee surgery and that a scrupulous selection of the cases is completed.

Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement Is Associated With Risk of Failure

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is reserved as a salvage procedure after failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) or after wide margin resection of tumors involving the proximal femur. Although failure of the PFR construct remains a significant problem, indication has not previously been investigated as a risk factor for failure.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent PFR over a consecutive 15-year period for primary sarcoma or metastatic disease of the proximal femur, compared with conversion to PFR after failed THA. PFR failure was defined as recurrent prosthetic dislocations, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or infection that ultimately resulted in revision surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 99 patients were evaluated, including 58 in the neoplasm and 41 in the failed THA cohorts. Failed THA patients were older (P < .001), with a greater proportion having comorbid hypertension (P = .008), cardiac disease (P = .014), and history of prior ipsilateral and intracapsular surgeries (P < .001). The failure rate was significantly higher in failed THA patients (39.0% vs 10.3%; P < .001) with significantly shorter implant survivorship on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .003). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that THA failure was the only independent predictor for PFR failure (hazard ratio: 4.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.66-10.94; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed significantly worse PFR implant survivorship in patients undergoing PFR for the indication of failed THA compared with neoplasm. Although the underlying etiology of this relationship remains to be explicitly outlined, poor bone quality and soft tissue integrity, multiple prior surgeries, and comorbid conditions are likely contributing factors.

Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications

INTRODUCTION

Reconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs.

HYPOTHESIS

The use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26-94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%).

RESULTS

Eighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2-10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58-82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85-98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26-100] at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort.

Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a well-established treatment for neoplasia of the proximal femur. The use of this surgical technique for non-neoplastic conditions has increased over the years. We carried out a systematic review of the literature to study the indications, complications, and functional results when PFR is used for non-neoplastic conditions. Twenty-seven studies were included in the review with a total of 828 PFRs with a mean follow-up of 50 months (range 1-225 months). The main indications were infection (28%), periprosthetic fracture (27%), aseptic loosening (22%), and fracture (16%). The rate of reoperation was 20.3% overall. The overall revision rate was 15.4%. The main complications were dislocation (10.2%) and infection (7.3%). After 2010, the rates of reoperation (25.5% versus 18.2%), loosening (9.4% versus 3.2%), and dislocation (15.7% versus 7.9%) were lower than before 2010. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%. The hip function scores improved post-surgery. In conclusion, the use of PFR in non-neoplastic conditions remains a marginal tool, associated with low direct mortality and high complication rates, but we expect its use to increase in the near future.

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.

RESULTS

Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.

CONCLUSION

PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results

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.

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Background

Periprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

Results

The infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

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.

Total Hip Revision with a Custom Acetabular Component and Femoral Allograft-Prosthetic Composite as Salvage for Failed Unstable Megaprosthesis in an Adolescent Patient: A Case Report at 19-Year Follow-up Duration

CASE

A 13-year-old girl presented after a right proximal femur replacement after proximal femoral resection for treatment of an Ewing sarcoma. She presented after multiple episodes of recurrent instability with her hip endoprosthesis chronically dislocated. Her hip was revised to a custom, constrained metal-on-metal acetabular component with a small iliac flange. The femoral component was revised to an allograft-prosthetic composite. She has been free of malignancy recurrence, implant failure, or dislocation at 19-year follow-up duration.

CONCLUSION

Dislocation of the prosthetic hip can be a challenging postoperative complication, particularly when associated with a tumor megaprosthesis in a pediatric age group. This is further compounded in the presence of deficient pelvic bone stock. Restoration of bone stock is optimal, but when impossible, custom components may be necessary to establish hip stability.

Different outcomes after proximal femoral replacement in oncologic and failed revision arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a technically demanding procedure commonly performed to restore extensive, oncological or non-oncological bone defects in a severely debilitated patient collective. Depending on different indications, a varying outcome has been reported. The aim of the study was to assess the functional outcomes and complication rates of PFR with the modular Munich-Luebeck (MML) femoral megaprosthesis (ESKA/Orthodynamics, Luebeck, Germany), and to highlight outcome differences in patients treated for failed revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) or malignant bone disease.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients treated with PFR for failed THA or malignant tumor disease between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome (VAS, SF-12, MSTS, WOMAC, TESS), complications and failure types (Henderson’s failure classification) were assessed. A Kaplan-Meier analysis determined implant survival.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (age: 69.9 years, BMI: 26.7 kg/m², mean follow-up: 66 months) were included. The mean SF-12 (physical / mental) was 37.9 / 48.4. MSTS averaged 68% at final follow-up, while mean WOMAC and TESS scored 37.8 and 59.5. TESS and WOMAC scores demonstrated significantly worse outcomes in the revision group (RG) compared to the tumor group (TG). Overall complication rate was 43.1%, and dislocation was the most common complication (27.6%). Implant survival rates were 83% (RG) and 85% (TG; p = n.s.) at 5 years, while 10-year survival was 57% (RG) and 85% (TG, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PFR is a salvage procedure for restoration of mechanical integrity and limb preservation after extensive bone loss. Complications rates are considerably high.

Functional outcomes and 10-year implant survival rate were worse in the RG compared to the TG. Strict indications and disease-specific patient education are essential in preoperative planning and prognosis.

Novel Cemented Technique for Trochanteric Fixation and Reconstruction of the Abductor Mechanism in Proximal and Total Femoral Arthroplasty: An Observational Study

Background

Little evidence exists regarding the clinical outcomes of cemented trochanteric fixation for abductor mechanism reconstruction in proximal or total femoral replacements. Clinical outcomes were assessed for a novel cemented technique for trochanteric fixation in femoral megaprostheses.

Methods

A descriptive series of 13 patients who underwent proximal or total femoral arthroplasty from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed. Radiographic trochanteric displacement >1 cm defined construct failure. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine survival rates for these cemented constructs. Demographic information was obtained to better characterize the patient population in whom this technique was used.

Results

Eleven patients were included (age = 63.6 years; 45.4% females; body mass index = 31.7). Mean time to final radiographic follow-up was 73.8 weeks. Three of 11 (27.2%) patients had construct failure. Overall, survival at 1 year was 81.8%. At 2 years, survival of cemented constructs was 65.5%. More construct failures occurred in patients who sustained a postoperative dislocation than in those who did not (P = .05).

Conclusions

This novel cemented trochanteric fixation technique for reconstruction of the abductor mechanism in femoral megaprostheses had 81.8% survival at 1 year postoperatively. While longitudinal comparative studies with larger samples are needed, the cemented technique may provide a viable alternative to traditional cementless methods of trochanteric fixation. Increased construct failure rates after postoperative dislocation highlight the importance of robust abductor reconstruction in these implants.

Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients

Introduction

Multiple revision hip arthroplasties and critical trauma might cause severe bone loss that requires proximal femoral replacement (PFR). The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse complication- and revision-free survivals of patients who received modular megaprostheses in an attempt to reconstruct massive non-neoplastic bone defects of the proximal femur.

Questions/purposes

(1) What were general complication rates and revision-free survivals following PFR? (2) What is the incidence of complication specific survivals? (3) What were risk factors leading to a diminished PFR survival?

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight patients with sufficient follow-up after receiving a modular proximal femoral megaprosthesis were identified. The indications for PFR included prosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, non-union and critical femoral fracture. Complications were grouped according to the ISOLS-classification of segmental endoprosthetic failure by Henderson et al.

Results

Overall, the complication-free survival was 64.3% at one year, 43.2% at five years and 38.4% at ten years, with 16 patients (57%) suffering at least one complication. Complications were dislocation in eight patients (29%), PJI in 6 patients (21%), periprosthetic fracture in five patients (18%), and aseptic loosening in six patients (21%). Prosthesis stem cementation showed a lower risk for revision in a cox proportional hazard model (95% CI 0.04–0.93, HR 0.2, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

PFR with modular megaprostheses represents a viable last resort treatment with high complication rates for patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss due to failed arthroplasty or critical fractures. In revision arthroplasty settings, PFR cementation should be advocated in cases of impaired bone quality.

A Contemporary Classification System of Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Current femoral bone loss classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty were created at a time when the predominant reconstructive methods used cylindrical porous-coated cobalt-chrome stems. As these stems have largely been replaced by fluted-tapered titanium stems, the ability of these classification systems to help guide implant selection is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe a novel classification system based on contemporary reconstructive techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent femoral component revision at our institution from 2007 through 2019. Preoperative images were reviewed, and FBL was rated according to the Paprosky classification and compared to ratings using our institution's NCS. Rates of reoperation at the time of most recent follow-up were determined and compared.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and forty-two femoral revisions in 330 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 2.7 years were identified. Femoral type according to Paprosky and NCS were Paprosky I (36, 8.1%), II (61, 13.8%), IIIA (180, 40.7%), IIIB (116, 26.2%), and IV (49 11.1%) and NCS 1 (35, 7.9%), 2 (364, 82.4%), 3 (8, 1.8%), 4 (27, 6.1%), and 5 (8, 1.8%). Of the 353 nonstaged rTHAs, there were 42 cases requiring unplanned reoperation (11.9%), including infection (18, 5.1%), instability (10, 2.8%), femoral loosening (5, 1.4%), and various other causes (9, 2.5%). The NCS was more predictive of reoperation than the Paprosky classification (Fisher's exact test, P = .008 vs P = ns, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We present a novel femoral classification system that can help guide contemporary implant selection.

Interlocking reconstruction-mode stem-sideplates preserve at-risk hips with short residual proximal femora

AIMS

We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.

METHODS

A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs.

RESULTS

All 14 at-risk native hip joints were preserved at a mean final follow-up of 6.0 years (SD 3.7), despite a short residual femur, often after proximal osteotomies through the lesser trochanter. Overall, 13 of 14 stems had long-term successful fixation. Eight patients required no reoperation. Three patients required reoperation due to implant-related issues, and three patients required reoperation for wound healing problems or infection. There were no dislocations or fractures. At final follow-up the mean MSTS score was 24.9 (SD 4.1). Nine patients required no ambulation aids, and only one had a Trendelenburg gait.

CONCLUSION

This interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate reliably preserves native hip joint anatomy and function after large femoral resection with a short remaining proximal femur, both in the primary and revision setting. This is particularly important for preventing or delaying total femoral arthroplasty in young patients after oncological reconstruction. Hip abductor strength and function could be maintained by this method, and the risk of dislocation eliminated. The success of this technique in this modest series should be verified in a larger collaborative study and will be of interest to revision surgeons and oncologists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):398-404.

Cortical strut allografts in salvage revision arthroplasty: Surgical technique and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to present our clinical outcomes and surgical technique in strut allografts preparation using staggered holes to enhance osteointegration and demineralised bone matrix (DBM) as an adjunct to cortical strut allografts in salvage revision arthroplasty patients.

METHODS

Retrospective consecutive series of patients who required strut allograft femoral reconstructions with minimum 2 years follow up between 2012 and 2018. Frozen washed irradiated, cortical struts were used and prepared adding 2 mm staggered drill holes along the length of the strut and applying DBM paste on the graft-host interface. Outcome measures included radiographic strut union, graft resorption, infection and complications.

RESULTS

15 patients included; 3 males and 12 females with median age 72 years (range 60-93). All had significant bony defects (Paprosky III/IV in 12 cases including 3 cases of periprosthetic hip fractures and further 3 cases of periprosthetic knee fractures around revision hinged implants). At final follow up, median 3.8 years (range 2.7-7.2), 14/15 (93.3%) struts had united at a median 6 months (range 5-8), complete incorporation with cortical round-off was seen at median 12 months (range 8-48) in 12/15 (80%) struts, 2/15 (13.3%) show radiographic evidence of proximal minimal graft resorptions although the remainder of the strut had integrated and were asymptomatic. There were no cases of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of strut allografts helps to reconstruct bone defects, restore bone stock, and provide stable fixation for complex patterns of periprosthetic fractures around hip/knee implants and salvage revision cases with 93.3% union rate at median 6 months.

Survivorship of Megaprostheses in Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty for Septic and Aseptic Indications: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Background

The use of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients has been associated with complication rates greater than 50%. In patients with prior periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with subsequent two-stage reimplantation, this complication rate may be even higher. This study was to investigate the outcomes of megaprostheses in nononcologic patients undergoing revision hip/knee arthroplasty.

Methods

We retrospectively studied patients who underwent megaprosthesis replacements from 1999 to 2017 at 5 hospitals with minimum 24 months of follow-up. Patients were stratified based on history of prior PJI (septic vs aseptic) and location of the megaprosthesis (the hip or knee). Postoperative complications were classified as soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural failure, and infection.

Results

Of the 42 patients, 19 were in the septic cohort and 23 were in the aseptic cohort. The overall complication rate was 28.6%. Complication rates for the septic and aseptic cohorts were 32% and 26%, respectively (P = .74). By anatomic location, there were 2 of 13 (15%) and 10 of 29 (34%) complications in the hip and knee groups, respectively (P = .28). In the septic cohort, there were no (0%) complications in the hip group and 6 of 14 (43%) complications in the knee group (P = .13), all due to infection. In the aseptic cohort, there were 2 of 8 (25%) and 4 of 15 (27%) complications in the hip and knee groups, respectively (P = 1.0).

Conclusions

There is no difference in the postoperative complication rates between the septic or aseptic cohorts undergoing revision hip or knee megaprosthesis replacements. In patients with prior PJI, proximal femoral replacements have improved short-term survivorship compared with distal femoral or proximal tibial replacements.

Non-neoplastic indications and outcomes of the proximal and distal femur megaprosthesis: a critical review

Purpose

Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints.

Methods

We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms ‘proximal femur replacement’ or ‘distal femur replacement’ and ‘hip or knee megaprosthesis.’ The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated.

Result

We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis.

Conclusion

Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.

Cemented Proximal Femoral Replacement for the Management of Non-Neoplastic Conditions: A Versatile Implant but Not Without Its Risks

BACKGROUND

The demand for revision arthroplasty continues to grow. Proximal femoral bone loss poses a significant challenge to surgeons and proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are one option to address this problem. The aim of our study is to assess the reoperation, complication, and mortality rates following PFR for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive group of patients treated with a PFR for non-neoplastic conditions between 2010 and 2018. Mortality was confirmed using the Irish national death events publication service.

RESULTS

Over the 8-year study period, 79 PFRs in 78 patients were performed. Mean age of patients was 78.3 years (standard deviation 11.9), of which 37.2% were male. Periprosthetic fracture was the most common indication for PFR (63.3%). The 30-day mortality rate was 7.6% (6 patients), of which bone cement implantation syndrome occurred in 4 patients. One-year mortality was 12.7%. Complications occurred in 22.8%.

CONCLUSION

A cemented PFR is a versatile prosthesis in the armamentarium of a revision arthroplasty surgeon that allows immediate full weight-bearing. However, it may appropriately be considered a last resort procedure that poses specific risks that must be explained to patients and family. We present the short-term outcomes on one of the largest series of PFR to date.

Using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite for reconstruction of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty: A case report

RATIONALE

Allograft-prosthetic composites (APCs) and proximal femoral replacement have been applied for reconstruction of severe segmental femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. The outcomes are encouraging but the complication rate is relatively high. Considering the high complication rates and mixed results of APCs and megaprosthesis, we presented a case using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite for reconstruction of segmental bone defect.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 73-year-old woman presented to the emergency department on account of acute severe pain of the left hip without history of trauma. She had undergone a cemented total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of femoral head at the left side in 2000. In 2013 she underwent a cemented revision total hip arthroplasty as a result of aseptic loosening of hip prosthesis. She denied obvious discomfort prior to this episode since the revision surgery in 2013.

DIAGNOSIS

According to the clinical history, imaging and physical examination, we confirmed the diagnosis of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur and fracture of prosthetic stem. The femoral bone defect was evaluated using the Paprosky classification system and rated as Type 3B, and the acetabular bone defect was rated as Type 2C.

INTERVENTIONS

In this study, we present the first case of severe segmental bone loss of proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty that was successfully treated using personalized 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite OUTCOMES:: At the 2-year follow-up, the patient was symptom free with a Harris Hip Score of 91. Radiographs showed excellent osteointegration between the interface of sleeve-prosthetic composite and the host bone, with no signs of implant loosening or subsidence.

LESSONS

Despite the absence of long term results of 3D printed Titanium sleeve-prosthetic composite reconstruction, the good clinical and radiological outcome at 2 years follow up implied its potential role for reconstruction of segmental femoral bone defect in revision THA.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29-90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2-10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81-261). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.

Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement

Background

Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures.

Methods

Forty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary).

Results

The mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside.

Conclusions

Reinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation.

Clinical Outcome of Massive Endoprostheses Used for Managing Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) is an option for management of massive bone loss resulting from infection around failed lower limb implants. The aim of this study is to determine the mid-term outcome of EPRs performed in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and infected failed osteosyntheses around the hip and knee joint and identify factors that influence it.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all hip and knee EPRs performed between 2007 and 2014 for the management of chronic infection following complex arthroplasty or fracture fixation. Data recorded included indication for EPR, number of previous surgeries, comorbidities, and organism identified. Outcome measures included PJI eradication rate, complications, implant survival, mortality, and functional outcome (Oxford Hip or Knee Score).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine EPRs (29 knees and 40 hips) were performed with a mean age of 68 years (43-92). Polymicrobial growth was detected in 36% of cases, followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (28%) and Staphylococcus aureus (10%). Recurrence of infection occurred in 19 patients (28%): 5 were treated with irrigation and debridement, 5 with revision, 1 with above-knee amputation, and 8 remain on long-term antibiotics. PJI eradication was achieved in 50 patients (72%); the chance of PJI eradication was greater in hips (83%) than in knees (59%) (P = .038). The 5-year implant survivorship was 81% (95% confidence interval 74-88). The mean Oxford Hip Score and Oxford Knee Score were 22 (4-39) and 21 (6-43), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of EPRs for eradication of PJI in complex, multiply revised cases. We describe PJI eradication rate of 72% with acceptable functional outcome.

Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects

Massive skeletal defects are encountered in the setting of tumors necessitating excision, failed total hip arthroplasty with periprosthetic bone loss, periprosthetic fracture, complex trauma, multiple failed osteosynthesis and infection. Reconstruction of the segmental defects poses a tremendous challenge to the orthopaedic surgeons. The goal of osseous reconstruction of these defects is to restore the bone length and function. Currently the most commonly employed methods for reconstruction are either a megaprosthesis or an Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC). Megaprosthesis, initially created for the treatment in neoplastic pathologies are being used for the non-neoplastic pathologies as well. The longevity of these implants is an issue as majority of the patients receiving them are the survivors of oncologic issue or elderly population, both in which the life expectancy is limited. However, the early complications like instability, infection, prosthetic breakage and fixation failure have been extensively reported in several literatures. Moreover, the megaprostheses are non-biological options preventing secure fixation of the soft tissue around the implant. The Allograft Prosthesis Composites were introduced to overcome the complications of megaprosthesis. APC is made of a revision-type prosthesis cemented into the skeletal allograft to which the remaining soft tissue sleeve can be biologically fixed. APCs are preferred in young and low risk patients. Though the incidence of instability is relatively low with the composites as compared to the megaprosthesis, apart from infection, the newer complications pertaining to APCs are inevitable that includes non-union, allograft resorption, periprosthetic fracture and potential risk of disease transmission. The current review aims to give an overview on the treatment outcomes, complications and survival of both the megaprostheses and APCs at different anatomic sites in both the upper and lower limbs.

Catastrophic cement reaction following cementation for megaprosthesis for proximal femoral fracture

Bone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) is a well-described and potentially fatal complication of orthopaedic surgery involving pressurised bone cement. Although also described for certain spinal procedures, it is most commonly associated with cemented hip and knee arthroplasty and with cemented hemiarthroplasty following neck of femur fracture in particular.Donaldson et alproposed the definition of BCIS as a syndrome "characterized by hypoxia, hypotension or both and/or unexpected loss of consciousness occurring around the time of cementation, prosthesis insertion, reduction of the joint or, occasionally, limb tourniquet deflation in a patient undergoing cemented bone surgery". Other features include increased vascular resistance, cardiac arrhythmias and cardiac arrest post cement use.We describe a case of a patient who suffered a catastrophic reaction to cement during surgery for a comminuted proximal femoral fracture.

Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss

Aims

Loss or absence of proximal femoral bone in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge. While the main indication for the use of proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) is in the treatment of malignant disease, they have a valuable role in revision THA for loosening, fracture and infection in patients with bone loss. Our aim was to determine the clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, and complications of PFRs used in revision THA for indications other than malignancy.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review of 44 patients who underwent revision THA using a PFR between 2000 and 2013 was undertaken. Their mean age was 79 years (53 to 97); 31 (70%) were women. The bone loss was classified as Paprosky IIIB or IV in all patients. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 12), at which time 22 patients had died and five were lost to follow-up.

Results

The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 42.8 (25.9 to 82.9) pre-operatively to 68.5 (21.0 to 87.7) post-operatively (p = 0.0009). A total of two PFRs had been revised, one for periprosthetic infection eight years post-operatively and one for aseptic loosening six years post-operatively. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of any revision or removal of an implant was 86% at five years and 66% years at ten years. A total of 12 patients (27%) had a complication including six with a dislocation.

Conclusion

PFRs provide a useful salvage option for patients, particularly the elderly with massive proximal femoral bone loss who require revision THA, with significant clinical improvement. While the survivorship of the implant is good at five years, dislocation continues to be the most common complication. The judicious use of larger femoral heads, dual-mobility constructs, or constrained liners may help to minimise the risk of dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:325–9.

Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications

OBJECTIVES

A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic indications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40), periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11).

RESULTS

Salvage was achieved in all patients. A total of 25 patients (25 EPRs, 31.6%) had a complication, the most common being infection (n = 9) and dislocation (n = 3). Further surgery was required for 18 EPRs (22%), nine of which were revision procedures. The five year survival of the EPR was 87% (95%CI: 76% to 98%). The mean OHS was 28 (4 to 48). Inferior survival and outcomes were seen in EPRs which were performed for the treatment of infection. However, the eradication of infection was achieved in 33 of the 40 (82.5%) which were undertaken for this indication.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the continued use of proximal femoral EPRs for non-neoplastic indications, including PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1463-70.

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

The use of modular endoprostheses is a viable option to manage both tumor resection and severe bone loss due to nonneoplastic conditions such as fracture sequelae, failed osteoarticular grafts, arthroplasty revisions, and periprosthetic fractures. We sought to investigate both midterm complications and failures occurred in 87 patients who underwent a megaprosthetic reconstruction in a nonneoplastic setting. After a mean follow-up of 58 (1–167) months, overall failure-free survival was 91.5% at 1 year, 80% at 2 years, 71.6% at 5 years, and 69.1% at 5 and 10 years. There was no significant difference in the survival rate according to the diagnosis at the index procedure (p = 0.921), nor to the reconstruction site (p = 0.402). The use of megaprostheses in a postneoplastic setting did not affect survival rate in comparison with endoprosthetic reconstruction of pure nonneoplastic conditions (p = 0.851). Perimegaprosthetic infection was the leading complication, occurring in 10 (11.5%) patients and implying a megaprosthetic revision in all but one case. Physicians should consider these results when discussing with patients desired outcomes of endoprosthetic reconstructions of a nonneoplastic disease.

Successful Outcomes Using Interlocking Prostheses for Periprosthetic Fractures with Loose Femoral Components

Periprosthetic femoral fractures with implant loosening are difficult to treat, especially when accompanied by severe bone loss. We report here the treatment outcomes of 4 patients (1 man, 3 women; age range 69-86 years) with periprosthetic femoral fractures and implant loosening after bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification as type B2 and B3, with adequate or compromised bone stock, respectively. One patient was initially treated conservatively but symptoms due to implant loosening persisted and revision surgery was required. All patients underwent revision using a long-stem cementless implant with interlocking screws as well as a cancellous allograft to augment the bone stock. At final follow-up (mean, 25 months), all patients had stable implant fixation, bony union of the fracture, and marked recovery of the proximal femoral bone stock through allograft use. This revision procedure achieved implant fixation and fracture healing with reconstitution of the femur even in the short term and even in cases with severe bone deficiency.

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review

PURPOSE

As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review.

METHODS

This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion.

RESULTS

Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.

Management of severe femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty

Femoral bone loss is a complex problem in revision total hip arthroplasty. The Paprosky classification is used when determining the degree and location of bone loss. Meticulous operative planning is essential where severe bone loss is a concern. One must correctly identify the bone loss pattern, safely remove the existing components, and proceed with the proper reconstruction technique based on the pattern of bone loss. This article discusses the etiology and classification of bone loss, clinical and radiographic evaluation, components of effective preoperative planning, and clinical results of various treatment options with a focus on more severe bone loss patterns.

The use of Gamma-irradiated proximal femoral allografts for bone stock reconstruction in complex revision hip arthroplasty

We have followed a consecutive series of 49 revision hip arthroplasties, performed for severe femoral bone loss using Gamma-irradiated anatomic-specific proximal femoral allografts longer than five centimetres. The patients were followed for a median 10.2 years, with a five year minimum follow-up. The median preoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved from 42 points to 77 points postoperatively. In four hips the femoral component was further revised for non-union of the allograft and aseptic failure. In one hip the allograft and the femoral component were removed because of infection. In one hip the allograft and the femoral component were re-revised for host step-cut fracture. Junctional-union was observed in 44/49 hips. By defining success as an increase of HHS by 20 points or more, a stable implant and no need for any subsequent re-operations related to the allograft and /or the implant, a success rate of 76% was observed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis predicted 79% rate of survival at 10 years and 75% rate of survival at 17 years, with the need for further revision of the allograft and/or implant as the end point. Three hips underwent re-attachment of the greater trochanter for trochanteric escape. Asymptomatic non-union of the greater trochanter was noticed in another three hips. Moderate allograft resorption was observed in four hips. Two fractures of the host step-cut occurred. There were four dislocations. Good long-term results with the use of large anatomic-specific femoral allografts justify their continued use in cases of revision hip arthroplasty complicated with severe femoral bone loss.

What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections?

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic replacement is the most commonly used option for reconstruction of osteoarticular bone loss resulting from bone neoplasm resection or prosthetic failure. Starting in late 2001, we began exclusively using a single system for large-segment osteoarticular reconstruction after tumor resection; to our knowledge, there are no published series from one center evaluating the use of this implant.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We investigated the following issues: (1) What is the overall survival, excluding local tumor recurrence, for these endoprostheses used for tumor reconstructions of the lower extremities (knee and hip)? (2) What types of failure were observed in these reconstructions? (3) Do the survival and complications vary according to site of implant?

METHODS

Between September 2001 and March 2012, we exclusively used this implant for tumor reconstructions. During that time, 278 patients underwent tumor reconstructions of the hip or knee, of whom 200 (72%) were available at a minimum 2 years followup. Seventy-eight patients were excluded from the study for insufficient followup as a result of early death (42) or loss at followup (36). The reconstruction types were the following: proximal femur (69 cases), distal femur (87), proximal tibia (32), and total knee (12). Failures were classified according to the Henderson classification. Nine patients among those with followup shorter than 2 years had presented one or more failures and they were included in our analysis but separately evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall survival (no further surgical procedures of any type after primary surgery), excluding Type 5 failure (tumor recurrence), was 75.9% at 5 years and 66.2% at 10 years. Seventy-one failures occurred in 58 implants (29%). Mechanical failures accounted for 59.2% and nonmechanical failures for 40.8%. The first causes of failure of the implants were the result of soft tissue failure in 6%, aseptic loosening in 3%, structural failure in 7%, infection in 8.5%, and tumor recurrence in 4.5% of the whole series. Nine implants sustained two or more failures. Overall incidence of infection was 9.5%. No statistically significant differences were observed according to anatomical site.

CONCLUSIONS

Like in the case with many such complex oncologic reconstructions, the failure rate at short- to midterm in this group was over 20%. Comparative trials are called for to ascertain whether one implant is superior to another. Infection and structural failure were the most frequent modes of failure in our experience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are a significant problem facing hip surgeons, and were responsible for revision surgery in 9% of single stage revision THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) in 2012; the 5th most common cause after aseptic loosening, osteolysis, pain and dislocation. The incidence has increased along with the number of THAs performed. Implants and techniques of THA continue to evolve, surgical indications are expanding and the number performed annually continues to rise. Furthermore, patients are undergoing THA earlier and living longer, leading to a rise in the average number of years at risk for periprosthetic fracture. In this review we will discuss the epidemiology of femoral periprosthetic fractures, their prevention, classification and the evidence base for their treatment.

Management bone loss of the proximal femur in revision hip arthroplasty: Update on reconstructive options

The number of revision total hip arthroplasties is expected to rise as the indications for arthroplasty will expand due to the aging population. The prevalence of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is expected to increase subsequently. The etiology of bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty is multifactorial. Stress shielding, massive osteolysis, extensive loosening and history of multiple surgeries consist the most common etiologies. Reconstruction of extensive bone loss of the proximal femur during a revision hip arthroplasty is a major challenge for even the most experienced orthopaedic surgeon. The amount of femoral bone loss and the bone quality of the remaining metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone dictate the selection of appropriate reconstructive option. These include the use of impaction allografting, distal press-fit fixation, allograft-prosthesis composites and tumor megaprostheses. This review article is a concise review of the current literature and provides an algorithmic approach for reconstruction of different types of proximal femoral bone defects.

Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an established treatment modality following oncological resection. Increasingly, these prostheses are being used for non-neoplastic conditions such as fractures and bone loss associated with septic or aseptic loosening. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the failure rates, mortality rates and hip outcome scores when PFAs were used in non-neoplastic conditions. There were 14 studies with an average follow-up of 3.8 years (range 0-14 years) describing 356 PFAs. Re-operation for any reason occurred in 23.8% (85/356) of cases. The most common complications were dislocation (15.7%) and infection (7.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 0% to 40%. PFA provides an acceptable surgical solution when confronted with massive bone loss, but it has a high re-operation rate for dislocation and infection.

Proximal femoral arthroplasty in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty

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.

The management of femoral bone stock in THA revision: indications and techniques

Following the increasing number of total hip arthroplasties, the amount of hip revision procedures continue to rise. Careful patient selection and bone loss evaluation is crucial for a correct management of femoral revision procedures. The key point in femoral revision is to obtain a reliable primary stability of the stem, with the least invasive implant as possible, to preserve and if possible to restore the bone stock. In this article we present the indications and the techniques for the femoral revisions most commonly used in Europe, referring to the evidence in the literature and our personal experiences.