Objectives

Modern metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), while achieving good results with well-orientated, well-designed components in ideal patients, is contraindicated in women, men with head size under 50 mm, or metal hypersensitivity. These patients currently have no access to the benefits of HRA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) has demonstrated clinical success in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, when used in HRA, potentially reduces metal ion-related sequelae. We report the early performance of HRA using a direct-to-bone cementless mono-bloc XLPE component coupled with a cobalt-chrome femoral head, in the patient group for whom HRA is currently contraindicated.

Aims

We investigated whether blood metal ion levels could effectively identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants who have adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD).

Introduction: Patients suitable for hip resurfacing are often young, active, in employment and have bilateral disease. One-stage bilateral total hip replacement has been demonstrated to be as safe as a two-stage procedure and more cost effective. The aim of this study was to compare the results of one-stage with two stage bilateral hip resurfacing.

Methods: Between July 1994 and August 2006 a consecutive series of 93 patients underwent bilateral hip resurfacing within a year. 34 patients in the one-stage group. 44 patients in the two-stage group. The age, gender, diagnosis, ASA grade, total operative time, blood transfusion requirements, medical and surgical complications, length of stay, revision and costs were recorded.

Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, and ASA grade between the two groups. There were 4 minor complications in the one stage group and 5 in the two-stage group. All complications were of a short-term nature. There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion requirements. There was a significantly longer total mean hospital stay of 5 days (95% c.i. 4.0–6.9) for the two-stage group. No patients had undergone a revision. The hospital received a mean of £6338 per patient for the one-stage group and a mean of £9726 per patient for the two-stage group. However, this included a longer total hospital stay, two anaesthetics and on average two extra out-patient appointments.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates no detrimental effects when performing a one-stage bilateral hip resurfacing in comparison to a two-stage procedure. The advantages of the one-stage procedure are that total hospital stay is reduced by a mean of 5 days and the cost is reduced by a mean of £3388 per patient, a 35% reduction of the cost of a two-stage procedure. These benefits do not appear to come at the cost of increase complications.

Introduction: We have investigated the accuracy of a serological marker to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening of Total Hip Replacements (THR). We present the preliminary results of our on-going prospective study.

Methods: After obtaining Ethical Committee approval, 46 patients were collected in 3 groups; “control” primary THR, revision THR for aseptic loosening, and revision THR for infection. Serum IgG responses to an exocellular bacterial antigen (Lipid S) were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results: Our results show that the test can accurately differentiate between the patients with infected joint replacements and the control group. The test, to date, has a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 100%.

Clinical Relevance: This simple and cheap test can reliably assist in the accurate evaluation of a painful hip arthroplasty, and planning for revision surgery. It will also be useful in the management of patients in whom the microbiology results are either negative or based on a single isolate of an organism, which may be either a contaminant or a possible pathogen. This, inturn, would have implications on financial costs and the optimum use of available resources.