Substantial bone loss following failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represents a major challenge in revision arthroplasty, that can require distal femoral reconstruction (DFR). In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical outcome and the complication frequencies of individuals who underwent DFR with modular megaprostheses. Additionally, we aimed to compare functional outcome measures after DFR in these sophisticated cases to an age-matched control group of total knee prostheses to quantify the potential loss of function. A retrospective chart review of 30 consecutive patients after DFR from 1997 to 2017 with a mean age of 74.38 years (± 10.1) was performed. Complications were classified according to the Henderson classification. Knee Society Score (KSS) was calculated and range of motion (ROM) was assessed. Thirteen (43.3%) patients had at least one complication requiring revision surgery. Revision-free survival was 74.8% at one year, 62.5% at three and 40.9% at 10 years post-op. Soft-tissue failure complications were found in three (10.0%) patients, aseptic loosening in four (13.3%) patients, structural failure in one (3.3%) patient and infection in eight (26.6%) patients. Of those with infection, five (16.6%) experienced ongoing prosthetic joint infection and three (10.0%) developed new infection after distal femur reconstruction. Patients with DFR achieved 69.3% of KSS pain score, 23.1% KSS function score and 76.2% of ROM compared to patients with primary TKA. DFR after failed TKA represents a treatment procedure with high risk for complication in this particular group. Despite the prospect of rapid postoperative mobilization, reduced functionality, range of motion and mobilization have to be considered when choosing this treatment option.

Background: Distal femur replacement is frequently used for limb salvage after bone tumor resections. It is also used in patients with severe bone loss because of traumatic conditions or revision TKA. Some studies on distal femur replacement reported on revision-free survival without distinguishing between patients with oncologic diagnoses and those without, although these patients might be incomparable because of their differences in important patient- and disease-specific characteristics. This may lead to an inaccurate and undifferentiated interpretation of the results of survival analyses. Questions/purposes: (1) What is the overall cumulative incidence of revision surgery after cemented and cementless distal femoral replacement, as determined with a competing risk analysis? (2) Does the cumulative incidence of revision surgery change over time? (3) Are there differences in the cumulative incidence of revision surgery between patients with oncologic conditions and those without who are treated with cemented or cementless distal femoral replacement? Methods: A total of 403 patients were possible candidates for distal femoral replacement. Of these, 56 patients elected to undergo different procedures, 83 were excluded because an expendable growing prosthesis was implanted, and 28 were lost to follow-up. Therefore, 229 patients who underwent distal femoral replacement for oncologic or non-oncologic reasons between 1983 and 2016 were retrospectively included in this study. The type of fixation method (cemented or cementless) was obtained from the patients’ medical records, operation reports, and radiographic analyses from plain radiographs. All radiographs were standardized and obtained at standard time intervals in our institution. No algorithm regarding the fixation approach was followed. According to our data, patients receiving cementless fixation were younger and therefore likely to be more active than those receiving cemented fixation. The median follow-up duration of the overall cohort was 85 months (range 0.1-391 months). Patients who died or had revision surgery before the 2-year minimum follow-up interval were adequately considered using competing risk calculation. The reasons for revision surgery were classified using the classification system proposed by the International Society for Limb Salvage. A competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence function of revision, accounting for death as a competing event. To evaluate the influence of potential prognostic factors, including diagnosis (oncologic versus non-oncologic), fixation (cemented versus cementless), year of distal femoral replacement, age, and sex on the occurrence of revision surgery, univariate and multivariable Fine and Gray models were applied. Results: The competing risks analysis revealed cumulative incidences of revision surgery for any cause (Types 1 to 5) of 26% (95% CI, 20.3%-31.9%) at 12 months, 37.9% (95% CI, 31.3%-44.4%) at 24 months, 52.6% (95% CI, 45.1%-59.5%) at 5 years, and 58.2% (95% CI, 50.1%-65.4%) at 10 years for all patients. Rotating hinge-type prostheses showed a lower cumulative incidence of revision surgery (41.6%; 95% CI, 31.8%-51%) than fixed-hinge prostheses did (64%; 95% CI, 50.5%-74.5% ) at 5 years (Gray’s test: p = 0.01). According to the multivariate Fine and Gray model, the year of surgery did not have any effect on the risk of revision surgery (1994 to 2003: hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07); 2004 to 2016: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.34; p = 0.26). The multivariate analysis, adjusted for disease, sex, age, cementation, and year of surgery, revealed a difference in the risk of revision surgery between patients with oncologic disease and those with non-oncologic disease (HR 0.44 for oncologic versus non-oncologic; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; p = 0.02) and a reduction in the risk of overall revision with cemented fixation in patients with oncologic disease (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.98; p = 0.03). Conclusion: This study indicates that even with newer implants, there was a high incidence of revision surgery after distal femoral replacement. According to our analysis, patients with oncologic diagnoses have a lower likelihood of revision when the stem is cemented whereas the type of fixation did not impact patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Because of differences in patient demographics (age, etiology of disease, and use of chemotherapy) and outcomes of fixation, oncologic and non-oncologic patients should be analyzed separately in survival studies about distal femoral replacement. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Titanium nanotube surfaces containing silver, zinc, and copper have shown antimicrobial effects without decreasing osteoblastic cell growth. In this in-vitro study we present first results on the biological evaluation of surface modifications by incorporating selenium and silver compounds into titanium-dioxide (TiO₂) nanotubes by electrochemical deposition. TiO₂-nanotubes (TNT) and Phosphate-doped TNT (pTNT) were grown on the surface of Ti6Al4V discs by anodization. Hydroxyapatite (HA), selenium (Se) and silver (Ag) compounds were incorporated by electrochemical deposition. Colony forming units ofStaphylococcus epidermidis (DSM 3269)were significantly decreased in SepTNT (0.97 ± 0.18 × 10⁶ CFU/mL), SepTNT-HA (1.2 ± 0.39 × 10⁶ CFU/mL), AgpTNT (1.36 ± 0.42 × 10⁶ CFU/mL) and Ag₂SepTNT (0.999 ± 0.12 × 10⁶ CFU/mL) compared to the non-modified control (2.2 ± 0.21 × 10⁶ CFU/mL). Bacterial adhesion was calculated by measuring the covered area after fluorescence staining. Adhesion was lower in SepTNT (37.93 ± 12%;P = 0.004), pTNT (47.3 ± 6.3%,P = 0.04), AgpTNT (24.9 ± 1.8%;P < 0.001) and Ag₂SepTNT (14.9 ± 4.9%;P < 0.001) compared to the non-modified control (73.7 ± 11%). Biofilm formation and the growth of osteoblastic cells (MG-63) was observed by using Crystal Violet staining. Biofilm formation was reduced in SepTNT (22 ± 3%,P = 0.02) and Ag₂SepTNT discs (23 ± 11%,P = 0.02) compared to the non-modified control (54 ± 8%). In comparison with the non-modified control the modified SepTNT-HA and pTNT surfaces showed a significant higher covered area with osteoblastic MG-63-cells. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images confirmed findings regarding bacterial and osteoblastic cell growth. These findings show a potential synergistic effect by combining selenium and silver with titanium nanotubes.

Aims: Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections.Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated.Results: Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases.Conclusion: Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379.