Impaction Grafting Research Articles

BIOMECHANICAL ASPECTS OF IMPACTION BONE GRAFTING IN THE ACETABULAR REVISION (EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL WORK)

Introduction. The modern features of the revision hip arthroplasty are the increase of the number early revisions and young age of patients. Bone defect management in this category is especially relevant. The leading role in long-term survival using impaction bone grafting (IBG) is given to the mechanical properties of the graft. The purpose of the study is to explore the mechanical properties of osteoplastic material and determine the effect of cyclic loads on dynamic changes in the position of the acetabular component after revision hip arthroplasty using (IBG). Materials and methods. A single-cycle constrained compression experiment was carried out on morselized xenobone. Cyclic tests were carried out at the second stage of the study. Clinical interpretation of biomechanics was carried out on the radiographic data by changes in the acetabular position. Results. Stress-strain dependences and instantaneous elastic moduli were obtained. The increase of the instantaneous elastic modulus during cyclic tests was obtained by 2.6 times for a “dry” specimen and from 3.9 to 4.7 times with liquid. The shift of the center rotation cranially and laterally was noted in the first case is 2.4 and 1.5 mm, in the second is 14.9 and 9.5 mm, respectively. The change in the inclination was 18.7º in the first case and 19.8º in the second. The Hip Harris Score (HHS) was 97 points in the first case, 53 points in the second. Conclusions: 1. The material used for IBG is subject to deformation in the postoperative period. 2. Compression tests suggested that the deformation of impacted bone graft in the postoperative period gradually tends to reach a plateau, and with the completion of the deformation, migration of the acetabular component stops. 3. A change of the acetabular component position in the absence of a radiolucent line is not an absolute sign of loosening.

Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplant vs. Safety Net Kidney after Liver Transplant: How Has the Policy Change Impacted Graft and Patient Outcomes?

Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplant vs. Safety Net Kidney after Liver Transplant: How Has the Policy Change Impacted Graft and Patient Outcomes?

Revision of Press-Fit Bone-Anchored Prosthesis After Implant Failure.

The present video article describes the revision of a bone-anchored prosthesis in patients who received an osseointegration implant after transfemoral amputation. Clinical follow-up studies have shown that approximately 5% of all patients who receive press-fit cobalt-chromium alloy femoral implants experience failure of the intramedullary stem component as a result of septic loosening or stem breakage. For stem breakage, stem diameter and the occurrence of infectious events were identified as risk factors. We began regularly utilizing the standard German press-fit endo-exo cast cobalt-chrome implant in 2009, but changed to the forged titanium version in 2014 (BADAL X, OTN Implants) because of the breakages associated with the former implant. No breakages have been reported since making the switch, and as such we currently still utilize the titanium implant. Current Commission Européenne-certified bone-anchored implants for transfemoral amputation include a screw-type stem and a press-fit stem. The revision technique demonstrated in the present article may apply to both types of implant system, but this video is limited to demonstrating the use of a press-fit implant. We describe the 3 stages of debridement, removal, and subsequent implantation of a bone-anchored prosthesis in a revision setting. We perform this procedure in up to 3 stages, with 10 to 12 weeks between removal of the failed implant and implantation of the revision prosthesis. For stage 1, in case of mechanical failure, the broken remnants of the implant, which may dangle in the soft tissues, are removed. The stoma is debrided, after which spontaneous stoma healing is achieved. In cases of septic loosening, stage 1 includes removal of the implant by retrograde hammering, followed by multiple debridements with flexible reamers and jet lavage until negative cultures are obtained. In stage 2, the broken osseointegration implant is removed with use of a custom-made titanium water-cooled hollow drill. With the use of this drill, we have always been successful in removing the broken implant while maintaining sufficient bone stock for future implant revision. If the corer fails, a larger approach is needed to remove the implant. The corer drill should have a wall that is as thin but as robust as possible in order to avoid cortical perforation, and should be manufactured from a strong material in order to resist the usage against the implant. We utilized a steel corer when initially performing this procedure, which was frequently unsuccessful, necessitating a larger approach to remove the implant. We currently utilize a 3D-printed corer drill with integrated water-cooling system with greater success (Xilloc Medical). This corer is custom-made and needs about 6 weeks for designing and manufacturing. This tool is utilized in the present video article. Stage 3 includes revision implantation of an osseointegration prosthesis, utilizing similar templating as in the primary surgical procedure. The time needed for the bone to recover from explantation is arbitrary, but we allow around 2 to 3 months before implanting a new intramedullary component. In cases of poor bone stock, a bone impaction graft can be applied prior to insertion of revision implant. A return to the prior mobilization level is an alternative to revision of the failed implant. Failure due to stem breakage can occur in cases utilizing small-diameter cobalt-chromium implants. Such cases can be revised with use of large-diameter titanium implants, provided there is sufficient bone stock. Failure due to septic loosening may occur in patients who are not properly indicated for this procedure, such as those with severe dysvascular disease or diabetes mellitus. A revised implant is also at increased risk for recurrent failure. Revision of bone-anchored prostheses includes up to 3 stages depending on whether the revision is for septic loosening or stem breakage. Although we allow 10 to 12 weeks before implanting a new intramedullary component, the time needed for the bone to recover from the explantation is arbitrary. During this interval, a temporary socket can be manufactured to allow mobilization with use of an artificial limb; however, most patients use just crutches and/or a wheelchair during this interval. Be aware of the type of implant that needs to be removed.Prepare for long operative times, especially in cases in which implants need to be cut or when dense cortical bone is expected.Account for 1.5 to 2 mm of extra diameter of the coring drill on either side in order to allow for the curvature of the press-fit implant.Plan for and acquire the right tools. Make sure to have at least 2 corer drills present in case of damage or malfunction.Utilize a fluoroscope frequently during initial drilling around the stem remnant.In case of poor bone stock, prepare for future bone impaction grafting when planning for revision implantation of a bone-anchored prosthesis. OI = osseointegration implantBAP = bone-anchored prosthesisBIG = bone impaction grafting.

Long-term outcomes of acetabular impaction grafting with cemented cups and trabecular metal for revision hip arthroplasty: a follow-up study.

Revision hip arthroplasty in the presence of complex acetabular deficiencies is challenging. Cement, allograft, reconstruction rings and porous trabecular metal now provide versatile options for acetabular fixation and restoration of acetabular offset. We compare acetabular impaction bone grafting (AIBG) and trabecular metal (TM) cups at long-term follow-up. 53 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed from local joint registry data. 36 patients were revised using AIBG and 17 with TM. Median clinical follow-up was 9.57 (2.46-18.72) years and 9.65 (7.22-12.46) years, respectively. 82% of the TM group and 63% of the AIBG group were ⩾ Paprosky 2C. Re-revision was considered failure. Radiographs demonstrating 5 mm of femoral head migration and 5° of acetabular component inclination change were considered loose. Patients receiving AIBG were younger (68 vs. 74 years) with a longer interval from initial arthroplasty to revision (17 vs. 13 years). Revisions in both groups were indicated most commonly for failed cementing (AIBG 88.9% vs. TM 70.5%). No TM reconstructions underwent re-revision, with only 1 failing at 6.3 years, compared with 9 AIBG re-revisions. When revising for sepsis, 33% of AIBG revisions failed. AIBG demonstrated high failure rates at long-term follow-up when compared to TM constructs. We recommend the use of AIBG in small cavitary defects only. We strongly advise against its use in the setting of significant bony defects and for prosthetic joint infection.

Management of acetabular bone defect in revision hip arthroplasty

The number of hip revision surgeries is expected to increase in recent years, and reconstruction of acetabular defects is a challenge for joint surgeons. The principle of reconstruction of acetabular defects is to achieve initial and long-term stability between the prosthesis and the host bone. With the development of surgical techniques, prosthetic materials, and revision concepts, there is an urgent need for new acetabular bone defect evaluation systems to meet clinical needs. The uncemented porous hemispherical cup has become the main prosthesis in clinical application, and metal augments are gradually replacing the structural allograft. Modular reconstruction combined cups and augments has shown favorable clinical results, which can be used for large acetabular defects with acetabular distraction technique, such as pelvic discontinuity. The advantages and disadvantages of impaction bone grafting, jumbo cups, metal augments, acetabular reinforcement rings, custom components (including custom triflanged acetabular components), and acetabular distraction technique still need to be observed in long-term follow-up.

Effect of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antibodies on graft function and survival in paediatric kidney transplant recipients.

HLA donor specific antibodies (DSA) are implicated in antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), graft dysfunction and failure in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Non-HLA antibodies including angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) may also play a role in AMR, impact graft function and survival. Data is limited in paediatric KT cohorts. We aimed to assess the prevalence and effect of pre-transplant AT1R antibodies on rejection, graft function and survival in paediatric KT recipients. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted across two paediatric centres including KT recipients with a pre-transplant AT1R antibody level. Outcomes included rejection, de novo DSA formation, graft function, failure, proteinuria and hypertension. Of 71 individuals, 72% recorded a positive pre-transplant AT1R Ab level (≥17 U/mL). Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, AT1R Ab positivity demonstrated a trend towards increased risk of rejection however was not statistically significant (HR 3.45, 95% CI 0.97-12.35, p-value 0.06). Sensitivity analysis with AT1R Ab levels of ≥25 U/mL (HR 2.05 95% CI 0.78-5.39, p-value 0.14) and ≥40 U/mL (HR 1.32, CI 95% 0.55-3.17, p-value 0.53) validated this. De novo DSA formation occurred more frequently with AT1R Ab positivity (41% vs. 20%, p-value 0.9). AT1R Ab was not associated with hypertension, proteinuria, graft failure or dysfunction. In conclusion, this cohort study demonstrated a high prevalence of pre-transplant AT1R Ab positivity (72%). AT1R Ab positivity demonstrated a trend towards increased risk of rejection and de novo DSA formation however did not meet statistical significance. There was no association between AT1R Ab and hypertension, proteinuria, graft failure or dysfunction.

Multi-parametric MRI-based machine learning model for prediction of pathological grade of renal injury in a rat kidney cold ischemia-reperfusion injury model

BackgroundRenal cold ischemia-reperfusion injury (CIRI), a pathological process during kidney transplantation, may result in delayed graft function and negatively impact graft survival and function. There is a lack of an accurate and non-invasive tool for evaluating the degree of CIRI. Multi-parametric MRI has been widely used to detect and evaluate kidney injury. The machine learning algorithms introduced the opportunity to combine biomarkers from different MRI metrics into a single classifier.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for grading renal injury in a rat model of renal cold ischemia-reperfusion injury using a machine learning approach.MethodsEighty male SD rats were selected to establish a renal cold ischemia -reperfusion model, and all performed multiparametric MRI scans (DWI, IVIM, DKI, BOLD, T1mapping and ASL), followed by pathological analysis. A total of 25 parameters of renal cortex and medulla were analyzed as features. The pathology scores were divided into 3 groups using K-means clustering method. Lasso regression was applied for the initial selecting of features. The optimal features and the best techniques for pathological grading were obtained. Multiple classifiers were used to construct models to evaluate the predictive value for pathology grading.ResultsAll rats were categorized into mild, moderate, and severe injury group according the pathologic scores. The 8 features that correlated better with the pathologic classification were medullary and cortical Dp, cortical T2*, cortical Fp, medullary T2*, ∆T1, cortical RBF, medullary T1. The accuracy(0.83, 0.850, 0.81, respectively) and AUC (0.95, 0.93, 0.90, respectively) for pathologic classification of the logistic regression, SVM, and RF are significantly higher than other classifiers. For the logistic model and combining logistic, RF and SVM model of different techniques for pathology grading, the stable and perform are both well. Based on logistic regression, IVIM has the highest AUC (0.93) for pathological grading, followed by BOLD(0.90).ConclusionThe multi-parametric MRI-based machine learning model could be valuable for noninvasive assessment of the degree of renal injury.

Intravascular Ultrasound May Not Impact Graft Sizing in Endovascular Repair of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for severe blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). Successful outcomes rely on accurate endograft sizing, but initial imaging may underestimate aortic diameters. This study examines the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) on endograft sizing and clinical outcomes in BTAI patients. A prospectively collected multi-institutional dataset from the Aortic Trauma Foundation was analyzed. Patients with BTAI undergoing TEVAR with IVUS were compared to patients who underwent TEVAR alone. Demographics and operative variables were compared, focusing on IVUS effects on endograft sizing by examining maximal proximal and distal aortic diameter on initial CT imaging compared to the graft diameters used during TEVAR. 293 patients underwent TEVAR for BTAI with IVUS utilized in 124 cases (42.3%). The average graft size in the IVUS and non-IVUS groups were similar proximally (26.91 ± 4.3mm IVUS vs 27.77 ± 4.7mm non-IVUS, P = 0.116) and distally (25.96 ± 4.7mm IVUS vs 26.51 ± 4.7mm non-IVUS). IVUS did not impact the difference between graft size and initial CT measurements proximally (4.32 ± 4.8mm IVUS vs 4.23 ± 3.9mm non-IVUS, P = 0.859) or distally (4.17 ± 5.9mm IVUS vs 4.50 ± 4.3mm non-IVUS, P = 0.606). Although delayed hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke occurred less frequently in IVUS patients (0.8% IVUS vs 7.1% non- IVUS, P = 0.024), in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (5.6% IVUS vs 7.7% non-IVUS, P = 0.581). IVUS is not associated with significant changes in endograft sizing compared to sizing based on CT scan alone in BTAI patients. IVUS was not associated with differences in mortality but was associated with a decrease in delayed hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. Routine IVUS in BTAI patients may not be necessary for accurate sizing, but there may be a relationship between IVUS and stroke.

The hybrid humerus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study of bone grafting and metaphyseal fixation with undersized stem in the assessment of proximal humeral stress shielding and associated clinical outcome

BackgroundA significant proportion of revisions after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is attributed to the humeral component. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the hybrid humerus technique for RSA using a Grammont-style humeral prosthesis in an onlay fashion with metaphyseal bone impaction grafting technique and undersized stem to avoid humeral stress shielding, notching, and loosening. MethodsThis is a prospective case series of patients who underwent RSA using the hybrid humerus technique with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Key steps of this technique include the use of undersized Grammont-style stem, impaction bone grafting of the proximal 5 cm of the humerus, and adjusting the height and offset of the stem depending on the patient stature, desired lateralization and distalization, and joint and soft tissue tension. Radiographic assessments were performed immediately after surgery, and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. These included assessment of metaphyseal and diaphyseal filling ratio, cortical narrowing, radiolucent lines, cortical lucencies, spot welding, scapular notching, and stem alignment. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative clinical assessments included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley Score, University of California Los Angeles score, visual analog scale for pain, and active range of motion. Correlation between the filling ratios and clinical outcomes were also evaluated. ResultsSixty-one patients were included in the study. The average metaphyseal and diaphyseal filling ratio on the postoperative X-ray was 0.66 and 0.54, and 0.67 and 0.54 at 2 years, respectively. Stress shielding was graded as none in 24 (40.7%), mild in 33 (55.9%), and moderate in 2 (3.4%). No stem had a change in position of more than 5°. At 2 years of follow-up, no humeral implant loosening was noted, with only 2 (3.4%) of the stems at risk of loosening. Thirty-nine (66.1%) had no notching, 14 (23.7%) were graded as mild, and 6 (10.2%) had moderate signs of notching. All clinical assessments significantly improved at 2 years (P < .001), with a weak negative correlation between visual analog scale and metaphyseal filling ratio (r = −0.268, P = .036) but none between diaphyseal filling ratio and clinical outcomes. ConclusionThe hybrid humerus technique of metaphyseal bone grafting with a low filling ratio stem presents a promising solution for reducing humeral complications in RSA. This technique demonstrates a low incidence of stress shielding and loosening, with excellent clinical outcomes at 2 years.

IMPACTION BONE GRAFTING OF LARGE DEFECTS IN ANKLE AND HINDFOOT FUSIONS

BackgroundAnkle and hindfoot fusion in the presence of large bony defects represents a challenging problem. Treatment options include acute shortening and fusion or void filling with metal cages or structural allograft, which both have historically low union rates. Impaction grafting is an alternative option.MethodsA 2 centre retrospective review of consecutive series of 32 patients undergoing hindfoot fusions with impaction bone grafting of morselised femoral head allograft to fill large bony void defects was performed. Union was assessed clinically and with either plain radiography or weightbearing CT scanning. Indications included failed total ankle replacement (24 patients), talar osteonecrosis (6 patients) and fracture non-union (2 patients). Mean depth of the defect was 29 ±10.7 mm and mean maximal cross-sectional area was 15.9 ±5.8 cm2. Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis was performed in 24 patients, ankle arthrodesis in 7 patients and triple arthrodesis in 1 patient.ResultsMean age was 57 years (19–76 years). Mean follow-up of 22.8 ±8.3 months. 22% were smokers. There were 4 tibiotalar non-unions (12.5%), two of which were symptomatic. 10 TTC arthrodesis patients united at the tibiotalar joint but not at the subtalar joint (31.3%), but only two of these were symptomatic. The combined symptomatic non-union rate was 12.5%. Mean time to union was 9.6 ±5.9 months. One subtalar non-union patient underwent re-operation at 78 months post-operatively after failure of metalwork. Two (13%) patients developed a stress fracture above the metalwork that healed with non-operative measures. There was no bone graft collapse with all patients maintaining bone length.ConclusionImpaction of morselised femoral head allograft can be used to fill large bony voids around the ankle and hindfoot when undertaking arthrodesis, with rapid graft incorporation and no graft collapse despite early loading. This technique offers satisfactory union outcomes without the need for shortening or synthetic cages.

MANAGEMENT OF FAILED TOTAL ANKLE ARTHROPLASTY AND MASSIVE BONE CYSTS USING IMPACTION BONE GRAFTING AND THE INVISION TOTAL ANKLE REVISION SYSTEM

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of revision ankle replacements, using the Invision implant and impaction allograft for massive talar dome defects following primary ankle replacement failure. Outcomes were assessed in terms of bone graft incorporation; improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs); and survivorship of the revision ankle arthroplasty.MethodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified eleven patients who had massive bone cysts and underwent revision of a failed primary total ankle replacement to the Invision revision system, combined with impaction grafting using morselized femoral head allograft. These revisions occurred at a single high volume ankle arthroplasty centre. Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to assess bone graft incorporation and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and EQ-5D scores were used pre and post operatively to assess PROMs.ResultsThe mean follow up was 18 months (12–48months). In all eleven patients, improvement was reported in the post-operative MOXFQ and EQ-5D scores. CT scans showed bone graft incorporation in all cases. None of the patients have required further surgery and are continue to do well clinically at latest follow up.ConclusionsIn the short term, this study confirms revision ankle replacements with the Invision prosthesis and impaction with morselized femoral head allograft is a suitable revision option for primary ankle replacement failure with massive talar bone loss. Long term follow up continues of these complex patients.

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.

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse patient and graft survival following adult liver transplantation.

The impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on adult liver transplant recipient outcomes is not clear at a national level. Further understanding of the impact of SDOH on patient outcomes can inform effective equitable healthcare delivery. Unadjusted and multivariable models were used to analyze the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to evaluate the association between the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) based on liver transplant recipient's residential location and patient and graft survival. We included adult recipients between 1/1/2008-12/1/2021. Patient and graft survival were lower in adults living in areas with deprivation scores above the median. Five-year patient and graft survival were 78.7% and 76.5% respectively in the cohort above median SDI compared to 80.5% and 78.3% below median SDI. Compared to the recipients in low deprivation residential areas, recipients residing in highest deprivation (SDI quintile=5) cohort had 6% higher adjusted risk of mortality (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR]=1.06,95%C.I. 1.01-1.13) and 6% higher risk of graft failure (AHR=1.06,95% C.I. 1.001-1.11). The increased risks for recipients residing in more vulnerable residential areas were higher (AHR=1.11,95% CI 1.03-1.20 for both death and graft loss) following the first-year post-transplantation. Importantly, overall risk for graft loss associated with SDI was not linear but instead accelerated above the median level of deprivation. In the United States, SDOH, as reflected by residential distress, significantly impact 5-year patient and graft survival. The overall effect of residential deprivation are modest, but importantly, results illustrate they are more strongly associated with longer-term follow up and accelerate at higher deprivation levels. Further research is needed to evaluate effective interventions and policies to attenuate disparities in outcomes among recipients in highly disadvantaged areas.

Diaphyseal Impaction Grafting Combined with Metaphyseal Cones: Outcomes in 88 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.

Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems can be successfully utilized in most revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, fixation of the cemented stem, which is important for cone ingrowth and construct survival, can be compromised. The initial results of our novel technique combining diaphyseal impaction bone-grafting with a metaphyseal cone were promising but required additional study. The purpose of the present study was to assess results of this technique in a larger cohort. A metaphyseal cone combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and a cemented stem was utilized in 88 revision TKAs at our institution, including 35 from our prior study. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years, and 67% of patients were male. Patients had had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. The 2 most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (78%) and 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (19%). The mean follow-up was 4 years. At the time of the latest follow-up, no cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free from any revision of the cone-impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation was 95% and 65%, respectively. A total of 25 knees (28%) underwent reoperation, with the 2 most common indications being PJI and periprosthetic fracture. All cones were osseointegrated, and all bone graft appeared stable or incorporated. One patient had radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening despite a well-fixed cone; however, this patient was asymptomatic and had not undergone revision at 9 years. When presented with a sclerotic, polished diaphyseal canal with deficient cancellous bone and concomitant metaphyseal bone loss, our technique of combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone proved extremely durable in this larger series of patients. No cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Impaction bone grafting as a method of choice in bone defect management in the revision hip arthroplasty: a cases series

Introduction Reconstruction of the acetabulum during revision arthroplasty is a challenging task in the setting of massive bone defects. Often the only effective method is impaction bone grafting (IBG). The purpose is to demonstrate the capabilities of the X-Change impaction bone grafting technology in replacing acetabular defects as a method of choice for revision hip arthroplasty.Materials and methods In the presented series of cases, the use (IBG) turned out to be the method of choice, allowing for high-quality reconstruction. In each presented case, revision hip arthroplasty was performed with augmentation with a reconstructive mesh or trabecular metal augment to create support and contain the defect to retain the osteoplastic material.Results During follow-up periods of 4.8 to 6.5 years there were no signs of resorption or loosening. According to the Harris hip score the results were 96, 97 and 89 points respectively.Discussion Impaction bone grafting technology is quite versatile. It can be used in various coditions of revision arthroplasty with contained defects of the acetabulum. In contrast to the use of modular revision augmentation systems and additive technologies it makes possible to achieve dense filling of the smallest defects and profile a bed congruent with the acetabular component. The use of cemented fixation makes it possible to further stabilize the impacted bone chips and use mechanotransduction mechanisms that stimulate the bone remodeling. The use of IBG has proven to be an effective technique for the reconstruction of medium-sized acetabular defects in combination with mesh and cement cup, as well as in combination with trabecular metal augments.Conclusion The use of IBG during revision hip arthroplasty can be especially effective for small acetabulum sizes. Combining IBG with trabecular metal augments significantly expands the application of this technology. The use of IBG makes it possible to create a bone reserve, which creates more favorable conditions for inevitable repeated revision interventions.

Effectiveness and Safety of Endoanchors in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of endoanchor, a stabilizing device for the proximal endograft designed to prevent endoleak and stent migration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR). Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Literature up to May 31, 2023 was searched and independently screened from 4 databases. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and follow-up endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates; sac regression; and 30-day all-cause mortality. Results: Sixteen EVAR (n=1145) and 6 TEVAR studies (n=163) using the Heli-Fx EndoAnchor system were included from 2225 retrieved records. For EVAR patients (mean follow-up=11.9 months), the endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention rates were 3.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.36%-1.99%), 0.004% (95% CI=0.00%-0.76%), and 5.43% (95% CI=0.86%-12.54%), respectively. The endoleak rates for primary and revision EVAR were 0.16% (95% CI=0.00%-1.65%) and 3.60% (95% CI=0.14%-9.72%), respectively. Only 4 cases of 30-day mortality (n=4) were reported in the literature. For TEVAR patients, the endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates were 7.4% (95% CI=0.03%-0.13%), 0.2% (95% CI=0.00%-0.06%), and 17.1% (95% CI=0.01%-0.45%), respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0.9% (95% CI=0%-0.12%). Conclusions: Endoanchor fixation in EVAR and TEVAR is effective and safe in preventing and treating endoleak and stent migration. The mortality is minimal in EVAR but higher in TEVAR. Clinical Impact Endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention in EVAR and TEVAR with endoanchor use were rare. Mortality in EVAR was low. The adjunctive deployment of endoanchors is an effective and safe means to prevent and treat endoleak and stent migration in EVAR and TEVAR. Yet, long-term efficacy and safety data and randomized controlled trials would be required to definitively recommend endoanchor use in routine clinical practice.

Comparative Assessment of Surgical Treatment Results of Patients with Early-Stage Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head

Background. The observed sharp increase in patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head (ANFH) associated with a new COVID-19 infection determines the need to find some new effective strategies for surgical treatment to achieve long-term positive results.&#x0D; Aim of the study is to make a comparative assessment of surgical treatment results of patients with early-stage avascular necrosis of the femoral head using different techniques of core decompression and autogenous bone grafting of the femoral head.&#x0D; Methods. We performed a comparative analysis of the treatment results of patients with early stages of ANFH. The patients were divided by the treatment method into two groups: control and main. Surgical treatment in the control group (n = 19) consisted of an open decompression and autogenous bone grafting of the femoral head using the Rosenwasser’s “light bulb” technique. The main group (n = 17) included the patients who had undergone the developed combined impaction autografting of the femoral head. Clinical and functional assessment of the treatment results was performed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) questionnaire and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Assessment was performed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.&#x0D; Results. The performed comparative analysis showed statistically significant difference in clinical and functional results after operative treatment in patients of the control and the main groups at all follow-ups. Change of the HHS values presented as Me (Q1;Q3) in patients of both groups at 3, 6 and 12 months was 77.0 (68.0;84.0) and 82.0 (75.0;91.0), p = 0.001; 79.0 (69.0;85.0) and 88.0 (79.0;95.0), p0.001; 81.0 (71.0;86.0) and 90.0 (85.0;92.0), p0.001, respectively. According to the WOMAC, the following dynamics was revealed for the same values: 30.0 (25.0;35.0) and 25.0 (21.0;32.0), p = 0.002; 27.0 (22.0;33.0) and 20.0 (17.0;27.0), p0.001; 24.0 (17.0;30.0) and 15.0 (13.0;24.0), p0.001.&#x0D; Conclusion. Comparative assessment of efficacy of the open core decompression with autogenous bone grafting of the femoral head defect using the light bulb technique and closed intralesional resection of necrosis focus with combined impaction grafting of the femoral head showed that the minimal damage to para- and intraarticular tissues when performing the approach to the area of the pathological focus and the main stages of the operation allows to achieve the best clinical and functional results and create optimal conditions for bone remodeling in the grafting area.

Femoral bone defect classifications in revision total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive review and proposal of a new algorithm of management.

The number of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and revisions is expected to steadily grow in the future. The femoral revision surgery can be technically demanding whether severe bone defects need to be addressed. The femoral revision aims to obtain a proper primary stability of the stem with a more proximal fixation as possible. Several authors previously proposed classification systems to describe the morphology of the bony femoral defect and to drive accordingly the surgeon in the revision procedure. The previous classifications mainly considered cortical and medullary bone at the level of the defect of poor quality by definition. Therefore, the surgical strategies aimed to achieve a distal fixation bypassing the defect or to fill the defect with bone impaction grafting or structured bone grafts up to the replacement of the proximal femur with megaprosthesis. The consensus on a comprehensive and reliable classification system and management algorithm is still lacking. A new classification system should be developed taking into account the bone quality. The rationale of a new classification is that 'functional' residual bone stock could be present at the level of the defect. Therefore, it can be used to achieve a primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological) stability of the implants with a femoral fixation more proximal as possible.

Evaluation and Management of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 10-year Update.

Acetabular bone loss continues to be one of the most complex and challenging scenarios facing the orthopaedic surgeon. Preoperative planning and classification systems essentially have remained the same, with the Paprosky classification still being the most commonly used. Careful radiological assessment with well-defined criteria can accurately diagnose acetabular bone loss patterns with an associated chronic pelvic discontinuity before surgery. The use of cemented reconstruction techniques has declined, and contemporary practice trends have involved the increasing use of highly porous hemispherical shells in conjunction with modular porous metal augments, which can successfully treat most acetabular revisions. Noncemented treatment options for the management of acetabular bone loss during revision include conventional porous/modular highly porous hemispherical implants, nonmodular highly porous implants with cementable acetabular liners, cup-cage reconstruction, oblong cups, and triflange reconstruction. These options can be combined with modular porous metal augments, structural allografts, impaction grafting, or reconstruction cages. Acetabular distraction is a newer technique for chronic pelvic discontinuity, which is used in conjunction with off-the-shelf revision acetabular shells and modular porous metal augments. This review is an update over the past decade, highlighting studies with mid to long-term follow-up, and presents the advantages, disadvantages, and principles associated with each of the most commonly used reconstructive techniques.

Cementless Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Technique to Maximize Press-Fit Fixation with Humeral Matchstick Bone Grafts.

Cementless reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become increasingly popular because of the improved implant design, porous ingrowth surface, and surgical techniques. When avoiding the risks of cement use, a press-fit arthroplasty stem that has been implanted may not feel immediately stable, especially if the medullary canal size is in between standard stem diameters. To help surgeons improve fixation and avoid overstuffing the medullary canal, we present the matchstick autograft augmentation technique. The use of humeral autograft, analogous to impaction grafting in hip arthroplasty, has been reported to have promising short-term outcomes2,3. This technique of using humeral autograft material, dubbed matchstick autografts because of their shape and size, allows for optimization of humeral stem stability with the option of smaller cementless humeral implants. By avoiding overstuffing of the medullary canal, this technique aims to reduce the incidences of intraoperative fracture, postoperative stress shielding, and potential implant loosening4-6. Cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is routinely performed via the anterosuperior approach7; however, a deltopectoral approach can be utilized if desired. The canal is sequentially broached with implant trials until the tactile feedback demonstrates axial and rotational stability. In cases in which tactile feedback during implantation demonstrates slight movement, the smaller implant size can be selected and augmented with matchstick autograft. An oscillating saw is utilized to cut the edges of the previously resected humeral head in order to expose the subchondral bone surface. Graft sticks about 20 mm in length and 1 to 3 mm in width are then fashioned. Humeral trials are then implanted with the matchstick grafts placed lengthwise alongside the humeral stem. Axial and rotational press-fit is again assessed. If adequate, the formal humeral implant is selected and implanted in position. As in conventional impaction grafting, the grafts are compressed to the side of the humeral canal, but they offer more corticocancellous structure than bone chips. This technique is applicable even in some fracture scenarios. When a specific press-fit humeral stem size does not achieve adequate stability, there are typically 3 surgical alternatives. First, a larger stem size can be selected. Second, the implant can be inserted deeper to achieve press-fit stability. Third, cement can be added to fill the medullary canal and create immediate stability. When implanting the humeral prosthesis, the operating surgeon's primary goal is stem stability. When faced with lack of stability, the surgeon can select a larger humeral stem, risking stress shielding; implant the stem deeper, compromising length and risking humeral fracture; or consider a cemented implant. In order to minimize the risk of intraoperative cardiopulmonary events and complicated subsequent revision surgeries8, the use of cement should be avoided if at all possible. Shoulder surgeons have reported grafting techniques, analogous to hip impaction grafting, that have yielded good success3. The technique that we describe utilizes a matchstick structural autograft that helps improve cementless fixation in primary humeral implantation cases and allows for the use of a smaller stem. The structural shape of the graft allows this technique to be utilized even in selected proximal humeral fractures. Other studies have reported on the use of softer cancellous autografts to stabilize humeral implants in shoulder arthroplasty. In a study of 286 arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, Lucas et al. reported that 267 humeral stems (93.3%) had not subsided3. Humphrey and Bravman used cancellous autograft to achieve metaphyseal centering of the humeral component in 53 patients, with no cases of humeral implant loosening at 12 months2. Lo et al. reported 91% tuberosity healing in their series of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasties augmented with matchstick autografts1, with no cases of aseptic humeral stem loosening. Montemaggi et al. used matchstick autografts to augment 46 primary cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasties and found zero instances of humeral loosening at 1-year follow-up9. The strongest humeral matchstick grafts come from the subchondral surface.After creating the graft, it is palpated for structural integrity. A stiffer or softer graft can be chosen, depending on surgeon preference.Surgeons can try impacting the graft with humeral trials to assess the stem stability prior to final implantation. RTSA = reverse total shoulder arthroplastyFX = fracture3D CT = 3-dimensional computed tomographyXR = x-rayFU = follow-up.