Increasing the accuracy of information provided through X-Rays maximises pre-operative planning. Aim of this project is to determine the necessity of calibration probes that would improve the accuracy of pre-operative templating. This is a retrospective study involving leg length and pelvis X-Rays performed across the NHS Lanarkshire from 01/03/2023 until 31/04/2024. A total of 87 leg length X-Rays were identified, 18 had a calibration probe present. Leg length was measured on each and the X-Rays were calibrated against the existing probe. In 66.7% of cases there was a major leg length discrepancy of over 2cm between the pre-calibrated and post-calibrated X-Rays. Pelvic X-Rays of 80 patients that underwent total hip replacement were reviewed. Preoperative templating was compared to the implants inserted. An average of 1.94 discrepancy in the size of the acetabular implant was identified whilst in 30 cases the size of the femoral stem was incorrect by at least 1 size. Magnification of 119.7% on X-Rays was found to provide the most accurate templating. Seventy seven cases of pelvic X-Rays before and after hip hemiarthroplasty were also reviewed. The implant head was templated incorrectly in 74% of cases and the stem in 51%. It was identified that pelvic X-Ray magnification of 121.7% would provide the most accurate results. X-Rays with no calibration probes provide inaccurate measurements leading to faulty preoperative planning. Standardised use of a calibration sphere is strongly suggested and whenever that is not available, we suggest magnification of 121%

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions.

There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection.

The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants.

We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.