Stem diameter and rotational stability in revision total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical analysis

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty often requires bypassing the deficient metaphyseal bone to obtain distal fixation. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of stem diameter and length of diaphyseal contact in achieving rotational stability in revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Twenty-four cadaveric femoral specimens were implanted with a fully porous-coated stem. Two different diameters were tested and the stems were implanted at multiple contact lengths without proximal bone support. Each specimen underwent torsional testing to failure and rotational micromotion was measured at the implant-bone interface. RESULTS: The larger stem diameter demonstrated a greater torsional stability for a given length of cortical contact (p ≤ 0.05). Decreasing length of diaphyseal contact length was associated with less torsional stability. Torsional resistance was inconsistent at 2 cm of depth. CONCLUSION: Larger stem diameters frequently used in revisions may be associated with less diaphyseal contact length to achieve equivalent rotational stability compared to smaller diameter stems. Furthermore, a minimum of 3 cm or 4 cm of diaphyseal contact with a porous-coated stem should be achieved in proximal femoral bone deficiency and will likely be dependent on the stem diameter utilized at the time of surgery

The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus?

Early arthroplasty designs were associated with a high level of anterior knee pain as they failed to cater for the patello-femoral joint. Patellar resurfacing was heralded as the saviour safeguarding patient satisfaction and success but opinion on its necessity has since deeply divided the scientific community and has become synonymous to topics of religion or politics. Opponents of resurfacing contend that the native patella provides better patellar tracking, improved clinical function, and avoids implant-related complications, whilst proponents argue that patients have less pain, are overall more satisfied, and avert the need for secondary resurfacing. The question remains whether complications associated with patellar resurfacing including those arising from future component revision outweigh the somewhat increased incidence of anterior knee pain recorded in unresurfaced patients. The current scientific literature, which is often affected by methodological limitations and observer bias, remains confusing as it provides evidence in support of both sides of the argument, whilst blinded satisfaction studies comparing resurfaced and non-resurfaced knees generally reveal equivalent results. Even national arthroplasty register data show wide variations in the proportion of patellar resurfacing between countries that cannot be explained by cultural differences alone. Advocates who always resurface or never resurface indiscriminately expose the patella to a random choice. Selective resurfacing offers a compromise by providing a decision algorithm based on a propensity for improved clinical success, whilst avoiding potential complications associated with unnecessary resurfacing. Evidence regarding the validity of selection criteria, however, is missing, and the decision when to resurface is often based on intuitive reasoning. Our lack of understanding why, irrespective of pre-operative symptoms and patellar resurfacing, some patients may suffer pain following TKA and others may not have so far stifled our efforts to make the strategy of selective resurfacing succeed. We should hence devote our efforts in defining predictive criteria and indicators that will enable us to reliably identify those individuals who might benefit from a resurfacing procedure. Level of evidence V