Femoral Bone Loss Research Articles

An MRI-Derived Formula for Estimating the Native Joint Line Position in the Presence of Distal Femoral Bone Loss

An MRI-Derived Formula for Estimating the Native Joint Line Position in the Presence of Distal Femoral Bone Loss

Long-term results and patient-reported outcomes after vascularized fibular graft use in the treatment of post-traumatic bone defects of femur shaft and tibia: A retrospective cohort and cross-sectional survey study

Post-traumatic critical-sized bone defects pose a reconstructive challenge for reconstructive surgeons. The vascularized fibula graft is a well-described treatment for osseous defects of the femur and tibia. This study aimed to assess long-term patient-reported quality of life, the success-, and complication rates in lower extremity reconstruction with vascularized fibula grafts. A retrospective cohort of 29 patients who underwent fibula graft reconstruction for critical-sized bone defects after post-traumatic tibial and femoral bone loss between 1990 and 2021 was included. To assess the health-related quality of life and return to work and satisfaction, a cross-sectional survey was performed using the short-form-36, lower extremity functional scale, and a self-made questionnaire including the DN4, satisfaction, and subjective ankle function. The median bone defect size was 8cm (IQR 9-7cm). The mental component scores were comparable to the Dutch population norm, whereas the impaired physical function scores were associated with pain (r 0.849, p<0.001). Neuropathic symptoms were reported in 7 out of 19 patients, and 11 out of 19 patients returned to normal daily activity. All respondents reported positive or neutral scores on overall satisfaction with the recovery. Bone healing was uneventful in 19 out of 29 patients. Union was achieved in 25 out of 29 patients. Persistent nonunion was observed in 4 patients, leading to amputation in 2 patients. Vascularized fibula graft use led to high union rates and limb salvage in patients with post-traumatic segmental bone loss of the tibia and femur. Patient satisfaction with the overall recovery was positive; however, functional outcomes remained impaired.

SHORT-TERM OUTCOME OF A MODERN MONOBLOCK TITANIUM FLUTED TAPERED REVISION STEM FOR COMPLEX PRIMARY AND REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

For over a decade, modular titanium fluted tapered (TFT) stems have demonstrated excellent clinical success for femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery. The aim of this study was to report the short-term outcomes of a novel modern monoblock TFT stem used for revision and complex primary THA with a minimum of 2 years follow-up.We identified 126 patients who received a single monoblock TFT stem - 26 patients for complex THA (failed fracture fixation) and 100 patients for revision THA. The reasons for revision THA included 40 for previous prosthetic joint infection (PJI), 42 for aseptic loosening, 9 for trunnionosis, 9 for periprosthetic fractures. The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss at the time of surgery and the measured subsidence of femoral stems at 3 months follow-up were determined. We evaluated the number and indications for re-operations.The mean time from surgery was 3.9 years (range 2.0 to 6.9 years). A paired t-test analysis showed significant improvement from pre-operative versus post-operative clinical outcome scores (p&lt;0.001) for HHS (38.76 +/- 15.24vs. 83.42 +/- 15.38), WOMAC (45.6 ± 19.0 vs. 69.9 ± 21.3) and SF-12 Physical component (31.7 ± 8.1 vs. 37.8 ± 11.3) and SF-12 Mental component (48.2 ± 12.2 vs. 51.6 ± 12.5). The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss was Grade 1 (3.9%), Grade 2 (35.7%), Grade 3A (47.6%), Grade 3B (11.1%) and Grade 4 (1.6%) cases. There were 18 re-operations (14.7%) with 13 for PJI (7 treated with implant retention, 6 treated with a two-staged revision), 4 for instability and one for acetabular aseptic loosening. There were no aseptic failures of the stem.This novel modern monoblock TFT stem provided reliable femoral fixation and has increasingly supplanted the use of modular TFT stems for complex primary and revision surgery in our institution.

Total Femur Replacement as a Salvage Procedure for Failed Distal Femur Megaprosthesis: A Case Report and Literature Reviews

Abstract Total femoral replacement (TFR) is not a common surgery and most indications are for oncological pathologies. However, there are few instances where non-oncological indications might necessitate TFR; this may be a salvage surgery for failed previous hip and/or knee surgeries with consequent significant femur bone loss. We present a 59-year-old obese woman with right thigh pain and difficulty with walking of 5 years duration. She had undergone bilateral total knee replacement 10 years earlier on account of severe knee osteoarthritis. She had a fall 3 years prior to presentation and sustained a periprosthetic fracture around the right knee which was managed with a fixed angle blade plate and screws. This was complicated by implant breakage and non-union. She subsequently had implant removal and a right distal femur replacement (DFR) surgery 2 years prior to presentation. A year after the DFR surgery, she began to experience “start-up” pain, instability around the knee and difficulty with walking without support. A clinical and radiologic diagnosis of aseptic loosening of the distal femur megaprosthesis was made and she was offered a revision DFR surgery which also failed due to poor cementing technique, bone loss at the proximal femur, and severe osteoporosis. Patient ended up with a right total femur replacement to salvage the limb. She had improved Lower Extremity Functional Score of 27 after 12-month follow-up. TFR is a viable salvage procedure for severely compromised femur and/or significant bone loss from multiple non-oncological surgeries of the femur.

Comparative analysis of femoral bone loss: uncemented vs. cemented aseptic stem loosening in first-time revision surgery—a retrospective evaluation of 215 patients

IntroductionThe integrity of the femoral bone is crucial when considering reconstructive options for the first-time revision of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Aseptic loosening of primary stems, whether cemented or uncemented, significantly affects the volume and quality of resultant femoral bone loss. This study evaluates the impact of the initial fixation method on femoral bone defect patterns by comparing the extent of bone loss.Materials and methodsA retrospective cohort of 215 patients with either cemented or uncemented stems, indicated for aseptic stem loosening, and undergoing first-time stem revision from 2010 to 2022 at our institution was analyzed. Femoral bone loss extent at first-time revision was preoperatively gauged using radiographs and categorized by the Paprosky classification. Survival probabilities pre-first-time revision for both stem types were calculated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios were applied to compare the risk of initial revision for uncemented versus cemented stems within the first and subsequent 2nd to 10th years post-primary implantation.ResultsCemented stems were associated with a higher occurrence of significant bone defects of type 3a (23.53% vs. 14.02%, p = .108), 3b (39.22% vs. 1.22%, p < .001), and 4 (3.92% vs. 0.00%) compared to uncemented stems. Conversely, smaller defects of type 1 and 2 were more prevalent in uncemented stem loosening (84.76% vs. 33.33%, p < .001). Notably, cemented stems exhibited a significantly prolonged revision-free period over the complete decade following primary insertion (p < .001). The unadjusted risk of first-time revision due to stem loosening showed a tendency to an increase in uncemented stems within the initial postoperative year (HR 5.55, 95% CI 0.74; 41.67, p = .096), and an adjusted risk of 2.1 (95% CI 0.26; 16.53, p = .488). However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. In the subsequent 2nd-10th years, the risk was lower compared to cemented stems (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.39; 3.99, p = .002).ConclusionsUncemented primary stems necessitating first-time revision due to aseptic loosening demonstrated notably smaller femoral bone defects in comparison to primary cemented stems.

Clinical outcomes and survival rates of a uncemented modular revision stem system in hip arthroplasty: a 10-year single-institution study on a frail population

IntroductionThe increasing prevalence of primary hip arthroplasty has led to a parallel rise in revision cases. Femoral revision often entails compromised bone integrity, requiring consideration of various solutions for optimal reconstructive options. Despite technological advancements, there is limited evidence on the clinical outcomes of the latest modular revision stems. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and survival rates of next generation uncemented modular revision stem in patients undergoing hip revision surgery.Materials and methodsThis retrospective single-center study assessed the survival and failure causes of a specific uncemented modular stem in 48 patients undergoing hip revision surgery between 2012 and 2022. Data included preoperative parameters, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes measured through clinical and radiographic assessments. Forty-eight patients (25 males, 23 females; mean age 72 years) were included, with a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5. Preoperative diagnoses varied, with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) being the most common (45.8%), followed by periprosthetic fractures (27.1%). Partial revisions occurred in 60.4%, total revisions in 39.6%. According to Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, type II and III were the most represented, respectively 35.4% and 50%.ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 4.6 years, stem survival was 92.5%. Complications (20%) included dislocation, PJI, fracture, and loosening; the overall reoperation rate was 12.5%. The SF-12 physical score was 43.6, while the mental score was 51.1. The HOOS score was 71.8, and the HHS score was 71.4. Radiographic analysis identified nonprogressive osteolysis in 15.1% of patients.ConclusionsThis study on this uncemented modular revision stem demonstrated favorable outcomes in an elder fragile population with moderate to severe femoral bone loss. The implant’s modularity provides versatility in addressing various defects, without any implant breakage observed during the study period. Literature comparison highlighted similar outcomes despite sample size differences. The promising results warrant continued investigation into the long-term survivorship of this modular stem system.

Prediction of Distal Femoral and Posterior Articular Surfaces in Total Knee Arthroplasty With Severe Bone Defects Using Computed Tomography-Based Templating Software.

Introduction Optimal repair of the joint line (JL) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is critical for knee joint motion reconstruction and ligament balance. Identification of JL may be difficult, particularly in revision or primary cases of severe femoral condylar bone loss. We aimed to define the relationship between the epicondyles and the articular surface (AS) of the femur using computed tomography-based three-dimensional digital templating software. Methods The study included 127 knees with osteoarthritis of the knee below grade 2 on the Kellgren-Lawrence index. A perpendicular line was drawn from the medial and lateral femoral epicondylar processes to the most distal point of the AS, and the distance was measured in the axial and coronal planes. Femoral width was measured as the distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles. All distances described above were converted to a ratio by division with femoral width. Results On the axial plane, the distance from epicondyles to the posterior ASs was 29.4 ± 2.2 mm medially and 21.3 ± 2.1 mm laterally. The width of the distal femur was 75.2 ± 4.2 mm. On the coronal plane, the distances from epicondyles to the distal ASs were 25.2 ± 2.9 mm on the medial side and 21.3 ± 2.5 mm on the lateral side. The ratio of the distance from epicondyles to the distal and posterior ASs divided by the width of the femur was 0.39 ± 0.02, 0.28 ± 0.03, 0.34 ± 0.03, and 0.28 ± 0.03. Conclusions The distance from the epicondyles to the distal and posterior JLs correlates with the distal femur width. These findings may be useful in determining an appropriate JL.

Impact of fixation method on femoral bone loss: a retrospective evaluation of stem loosening in first-time revision total hip arthroplasty among two hundred and fifty five patients

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

Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.

ACHIEVING DISTAL FIXATION AND EARLY MOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE FEMORAL BONE LOSS USING AN INTERNAL PROXIMAL FEMORAL REPLACEMENT PROSTHESIS

The management of femoral bone loss is challenging during revision hip arthroplasty. In patients with Paprosky grade IIIB and IV defects, obtaining fixation and rotational stability using traditional surgical constructs is difficult. The use of a custom-made internal proximal femoral replacement prostheses has been proposed as a solution in patients, with severe femoral bone stock loss. However, there is a paucity in the literature on their use and long-term outcomes. We report on the clinical and radiological results of our cohort.We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent internal proximal femoral replacement for revision hip arthroplasty between April 1996 and April 2019. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up time.160 patients underwent limb salvage at our institution using internal proximal femoral replacement. The mean follow-up was 79.7 months (S.D 41.3). Indications for revision included periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening, and deep infection. The mean Oxford hip score increased from 13.8 (0–22) to 31.5 (18–43) (paired t-test, p &lt; 0.001). Kaplan-Meier prosthesis survival analysis with revision as the endpoint was 87% at 5 years. None required revision of the femoral stem. There were four dislocations (5%) and there was failure to eradicate the deep infection in four.This technique allows instant distal fixation, allowing for early mobilisation. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes are encouraging and the complication rates are acceptable for this patient group.

Techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions: a narrative review.

Proximal femoral replacement due to revision hip arthroplasty or catastrophic proximal femur fracture fixation failures with considerable proximal femur bone loss can lead to a substantial loss of function of the soft tissue around the hip and the abductor muscles in particular. Surgical techniques of gluteus medius repair and/or abductor mechanism reattachment/reconstruction are widely debated in the literature, but it is quite rarely dealt with in the context of megaprosthesis and femoral reconstruction, particularly in non-oncologic patients. The aim of this study is to present a narrative review of the literature on techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently from inception until February 1st, 2023 (923 for MEDLINE and 963 for Embase; Cochrane is a composite of multiple databases and thus does not report a standard inception date). Articles examining proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis or allograft prosthesis were included. Studies concerning cadaver and oncologic patients were excluded. If the researchers failed to find an agreement on whether to include a study, the senior researcher would make a final decision in such cases. Data were extracted and stored, and qualitative synthesis was performed. A total of 1,157 articles from MEDLINE, 11,187 articles from Embase, and 0 articles from Cochrane were identified. Of 12,344 articles, the structured screening process revealed 10 eligible trials. Four different types of abductor musculature reconstruction/reinsertion were identified. Multiple and complex revision hip arthroplasties as well as multiple surgical procedures for proximal femur fracture fixations failures may have a great impact on proximal femur bone stock condition and soft tissue preservation requiring the use of a proximal femur megaprosthesis. In such cases, the abductor mechanism reconstruction and/or reattachment is achievable with different techniques that can be resumed in four different groups: direct suture to the prosthesis, trochanteric sleeve osteotomy, muscle-to-muscle suture, and synthetic tube augmentation suture.

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of a Modern Monoblock Titanium Fluted Tapered Revision Stem for Complex Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundModular titanium fluted tapered (TFT) stems have demonstrated excellent clinical success for femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery. This study reports the short-term outcomes of a novel modern monoblock TFT stem used for revision and complex primary THA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. MethodsWe identified 126 patients who received a single monoblock TFT stem: 26 patients for complex THA (failed fracture fixation) and 100 patients for revision THA. The reasons for revision THA included 40 for previous periprosthetic joint infection, 42 for aseptic loosening, 9 for trunnionosis, and 9 for periprosthetic fractures. The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss at the time of surgery and the measured subsidence of femoral stems at 3-month follow-up were determined. We evaluated the number and indications for reoperations. ResultsThe mean time from surgery was 3.9 years (range, 2.0 to 6.9). A paired t-test analysis showed significant improvement from preoperative versus postoperative clinical outcome scores (P < .001) for Harris Hip Score (38.76 ± 15.24 versus 83.42 ± 15.38), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (45.6 ± 19.0 versus 69.9 ± 21.3), Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical component (31.7 ± 8.1 versus 37.8 ± 11.3), and Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Mental component (48.2 ± 12.2 versus 51.6 ± 12.5). The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss was Grade 1 (3.9%), Grade 2 (35.7%), Grade 3A (47.6%), Grade 3B (11.1%), and Grade 4 (1.6%) cases. There were 18 reoperations (14.7%), with 13 for periprosthetic joint infection (7 treated with implant retention and 6 treated with a 2-stage revision), 4 for instability, and 1 for acetabular aseptic loosening. There were no aseptic failures of the stem. ConclusionsThis novel modern monoblock TFT stem provided reliable femoral fixation and has increasingly supplanted the use of modular TFT stems for complex primary and revision surgery in our institution.

Treatment of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a clinical practice review.

Patient and implant selection is essential to optimize outcome. Femoral bone loss classifications such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Gross, and Paprosky classifications permit surgeons to systematically manage bone stock deficiencies and guide implant selection. Here we provide a comprehensive report on the pitfalls and management of this reconstructive challenge. Preoperative planning remains vital to the treatment of femoral bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty and the authors believe it is essential and should include the entire femur. This commonly includes imaging for bone loss such as Judet views or computed tomography scan and must include the entire femur though additional radiographs such as Judet views apply more for acetabular bone loss as opposed to femoral bone loss. All patients should have pre-operative work up to exclude infection. If any of these results area elevated, an aspirate and sampling is required to guide microbiological management. Classically with regards femoral revision surgery, uncemented fixation has proven to give the best outcomes but surgeons must remain flexible and use cemented fixation when necessary. Adequate proximal bone stock permits the use of implants used in primary joint surgery. Implants with proximal modularity can be used in cases where bone stock allows for superb proximal bone support. The vast majority of femoral revisions have inadequate proximal bone stock, thus distally fixed stems should be used and have been shown to provide both axial and rotational stability provided there is an intact isthmus. Taper fluted stems can provide good outcomes even in cases of major bone loss. However, with severe bony loss, impaction grating or the use of a megaprotsthesis is sometimes necessary and is down to surgeon choice and preference. This article has been written as a guide for management and summarises the best evidence available.

Implant Survival of an Uncemented Modular Femoral Implant in Patients With Severe Femoral Bone Loss and 2‐Stage Hip Revision

Background and Purpose: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a challenging procedure especially in the presence of severe bone loss where implant fixation is compromised. The aim of this study was to evaluate implant survival, clinical outcome, and midterm results in a group of complex patients after femoral revision using an uncemented modular implant design.Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective study including 100 patients (101 hips) treated with revision THA using an uncemented modular implant design. We identified 51 hips as Paprosky types I‐II and 50 hips as Paprosky III‐IV bone defects. We reviewed operative reports and radiographs. Patients underwent a clinical examination to assess the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and completed patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM), including the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the EQ‐5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Minimum follow‐up was 2 years (average, 5.8 years; range, 2.0–9.4 years).Results: Among the cases, 46 hips were revised for infection in a 2‐stage procedure and 44 hips for aseptic loosening. 11 hips had periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 or B3. A total of 5 hips required revision with removal of the femoral implant and 11 patients experienced complications resulting in fracture (n = 1), dislocation (n = 10), and soft tissue revision (n = 1). The 5‐year implant survival estimated by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was 95% (95%‐CI: 91%–99%). All hips had radiographic evidence of osseointegration and no one with subsidence greater than 5 mm. Additionally, 80% showed radiographic evidence of restoration of proximal femoral bone. Mean HHS was 78.Conclusion: In complex cases of revision THA, using a modular revision femoral system yielded promising results. The 5‐year implant survival estimated by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was 95% (95%‐CI: 91%–99%), with all hips demonstrating radiographic evidence of osseointegration and no one with subsidence greater than 5 mm. Notably 80% showed radiographic evidence of restoration of proximal femoral bone.

Cage Augmentation of the Retained Acetabular Shell with a Dual Mobility Cup using the Double Socket Technique

Introduction: Prevention of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a topic of debate. There are various surgical options to manage hip instability such as large femoral heads, and constrained liners, although the best option to tackle this is still controversial. In revision scenarios with previous well-fixed acetabulum shells, the cementation of polyethylene liners or the cementation of dual mobility (DM) into a well-fixed acetabulum shell (Double Socket Technique) has been documented before. Here, we report a case of re-revision THA, where we have used the Double Socket Technique of retaining the previous well-fixed acetabular shell with the cementation of the DM cup along with an anti-protrusio cage inside the socket. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such a case to be reported worldwide. Case Report: A 54-year-old male who underwent THA in 1990 and an acetabulum cup revision in 2003 presented to us with right hip pain. Radiographs showed Paprosky Type 3A femoral bone loss and polyethylene wear. Intraoperatively after removing the polyethylene liner, the acetabulum shell was found to be well fixed and therefore retained. To increase stability, an anti-protrusio cage was inserted over it and a DM cup was cemented onto it (double socket). The femoral stem was revised using Wagner stem and encerclage wires and a hook plate was used to stabilize the osteotomy site. Conclusion: This technique is a reliable option and helps shorten the surgical time and reduce the bone loss that can occur in extracting a well-fixed acetabulum shell. The use of a DM cup decreases the chances of instability compared to the cementation of polyethylene liners and decreases the high failure rate associated with the use of cementation of constrained liners. The addition of an anti-protrusio cage in addition to the Double Socket Technique increases the stability of the construct. Keywords: Anti-protrusio cage, Dual mobility, Double socket, Revision total hip arthroplasty, Well-fixed acetabulum

Excellent Survival Rate of Cemented Modular Stems in One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infections With Massive Femoral Bone Loss: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis of 150 Cases

BackgroundWith the increasing incidence of total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is also an expected concurrent increase in revision THA (rTHA), which is known to have a high complication and re-revision rate. In the setting of infection, radical debridement is essential and options for femoral bone loss are limited. One viable solution is cemented modular stems, but limited evidence exists on their use in septic revision. This study aimed to analyze survival and complication related to the use of cemented modular stems in one-stage septic rTHA with severe femoral bone loss. MethodsThe institutional database of patients who underwent rTHA for septic one-stage revision with cemented modular stems was reviewed. Exclusion criteria were patients aged less than 18 years and nonseptic or 2 stage revisions. Outcomes measured were complication, re-infection, re-operation, and survivorship of the implant. A total of 150 patients were included. The mean age was 68 years (range, 30 to 91), and the mean follow-up was 105 months (range, 1 to 150). ResultsTreatment was considered successful in 81.3% of cases. Patients who underwent multiple prior surgeries demonstrated a lower rate of treatment success (P < .001). The main cause of failure was re-infection (11 of 28). Among cases failed for aseptic reasons (17 of 28), loosening of the cemented modular stem was the cause of re-revision in 2 patients (1.3%). ConclusionsThe use of modular cemented stems is a viable option in case of septic one-stage rTHA associated with severe femoral bone loss. However, surgeons and patients should be aware that this treatment is still characterized by a high rate of complications, which may lead to further surgeries. Level of evidenceIII.

Revision total hip arthroplasty with custom-made hip implant for Paprosky type IV femoral bone loss

Introduction Replacement of extensive Paprosky type IIIB and type IV bone loss is a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).The purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of femoral reconstruction in proximal femur bone loss using a custom-made implant for revision THA.Material and methods We report a case of a 72-year-old patient with an extensive Paprosky type IV femoral defect, which was replaced using a custom-made modular component.Results The femoral defect was successfully augmented with a custom-made modular component, and the hip function was restored. The locking mechanism of the constrained system failed at 6 months with the joint remained stable. The patient could ambulate with additional support. VAS, HHS and HOOS scores measured before and after 2 years showed positive dynamics.Discussion Paprosky type IIIB and type IV defects are a challenge for revision hip arthroplasty. There is a variety of surgical options with outcomes being ambiguous. Modular and monoblock tapered stems, the technique of impacted bone graft have been reported to have excellent results in revision THA with Paprosky type III and IV defects. A custom-made femoral component was developed based on the principle of modular stems. Joint stability is a concomitant problem with a severe bone defect that can be addressed with a double mobility or constrained system. Both methods are associated with a sufficient number of complications.Conclusion Replacement of a Paprosky type IV femoral defect with a custom-made modular component demonstrated satisfactory outcomes at a two‑year follow-up. The patient had no complaints, could ambulate unassisted using an elbow crutch and positively evaluated the result of treatment.

An aqueous extract of Prunella vulgaris L. ameliorates cadmium-induced bone loss by promoting osteogenic differentiation in female rats.

Cadmium (Cd) causes bone loss, concerning inhibiting osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs). Prunella vulgaris L. (PV) has the potential for promoting osteogenic differentiation, but its influence on Cd-induced bone loss is unclear. This study investigated the effect of PV aqueous extract (PVE) on Cd-induced bone loss and its underlying mechanisms. Eight-week-old female SD rats were randomly assigned into four groups and treated for 16 weeks: Control, Cd (50mg/L of Cd chloride), Cd+PV Low (125mg/kg bw of PVE), and Cd+PV High (250mg/kg bw of PVE). PV ameliorated femoral bone loss in Cd-treated rats manifested as increases in bone mineral density, bone volume, trabecular thickness, number, and area, and decreases in trabecular separation. Compared with Cd group, PV-treatment groups had higher serum levels of bone formation markers (ALP, BGP). Additionally, in PV-treatment groups, expressions of bone formation markers (Osterix, Runx2) and molecules involved in osteogenic differentiation signal pathway BMP/Smad (BMP4, Smad1/5/9) in the tibia of rats and isolated rat primary BMSCs were upregulated. These results suggest that PV alleviates Cd-induced bone loss by promoting osteogenic differentiation, which is likely associated with BMP/Smad pathway.

Nonvascularized fibular graft with locking screw fixation for metaphyseal bone loss of distal femur: biomechanical assessment validated by a clinical case series.

The optimal modality to surgically treat significant bone loss of distal femur remains inconclusive. The objectives of the present study were to assess the mechanical performance of nonvascularized fibular graft (NVFG) with locking screw fixation in distal femur fixation construct by finite element analysis and to retrospectively describe the outcomes of the present technique in clinical cases. Four constructs which the fractured femur was stabilized by LCP-DF alone, dual plating, LCP-DF combined with NVFG, and LCP-DF combined with NVFG (LCP-DF-NVFG-S)with locking screw were assessed the biomechanical performance under physiological loads. For the clinical case series, 12 patients with open intercondylar fracture with metaphyseal bone loss of distal femur were operated by LCP-DF-NVFG-S. The collected data included fracture consolidation, length of NVFG, perioperative complications and objective clinical results. LCP-DF-NVFG-S demonstrated lower implant equivalent von Mises stress (EQV) stress and better fracture stability than other constructs. A locking screw presented its essence in maintaining the NVFG in the required position and subsequently enhancing the fracture stability. In regard to the clinical series, all fractures were consolidated with an average duration of 27.8weeks (range 20-32). An average NVFG length was 7.8cm (range 6-12). No perioperative complication was demonstrated. By the Knee Society score, 1 was considered to be excellent, 9 to be good and 2 to be poor. Based on the results of mechanical assessment and case series, LCP-DF-NVFG-S can be an effective technique in the management of metaphyseal bone loss of distal femur.

Indications and Outcomes of a Tibial Turn-up Procedure: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

Background: Treatment options for distal femoral bone loss resulting from malignancy, infection, or trauma can be grouped into limb salvage techniques versus amputation. A vascularized osteomyocutaneous flap using the ipsilateral tibia—a tibial turn-up procedure—can be used to restore femoral length for high above-knee amputations in both the primary and revision setting. We report 3 patients treated with this procedure. Purpose: To describe the treatment algorithm and functional outcomes of patients who have undergone a tibial turn-up procedure and to highlight its viability when considering surgical options for the treatment of distal femoral primary bone and soft tissue malignancy and in cases of severe trauma, infection, or implant failure. Patients and Methods: Three patients ages 21 to 56 years old treated with tibial turn-up as a salvage procedure for failed limb sparing techniques were followed for 1.5 to 3.5 years postoperatively. One was treated for recalcitrant chronic distal femur osteomyelitis, 1 for aseptic loosening of distal femoral replacement, and 1 for infected distal femoral replacement. Radiographic and functional outcomes including prosthetic use, ambulatory status, and current activity level were reported. Results: At a minimum 1.5-year follow-up, all 3 patients achieved bony union and were ambulatory with prosthetics without the use of additional gait aids. Conclusions: Tibial turn-up is an effective treatment option in the setting of distal femoral bone loss and/or limb salvage complications, providing good functional outcomes with a single durable surgery.