Introduction. Despite an ageing population and a rise in the number of joint replacements being performed, the mean age of patients undergoing surgery remains static. One explanation for this is continued concern over the risks of performing surgery on the very elderly. The Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom has an established patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme into which all patients are routinely enrolled. Post-operative complications, Oxford scores and Euro-Quol (EQ5-D) are collected to the second post-operative year. Methods and Results. We retrospectively reviewed our data set for a cohort of nonagenarians undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) between April 2008 and October 2011. Post-operative complications, mortality rates and functional outcomes were compared to those of a time matched 70–79 year old cohort. Only patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis were included whereas an exclusion criterion consisted of patients undergoing revision surgery, simultaneous bilateral replacements or conversion from a dynamic hip screw. We identified 38 nonagenarian patients (12 men and 26 women), with a mean age of 92.18 (90–99) and the control group consisted of 55 patients (21 men and 34 women), with a mean age of 74.69 (70–79). We found that nonagenarians requiring a THR presented with lower pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) (p=0.02) but made a greater improvement in the first post-operative year than the younger cohort (p=0.040). The nonagenarians had a greater risk of requiring a blood transfusion following THR (p= 0.0265; CI 1.11 to 5.75), and also required a longer stay than their younger counterparts (p=0.001). Mortality rates were higher in the nonagenarian cohort, but these were in keeping with the life expectancy projections identified by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Conclusion. In conclusion, we identified that over a 2 year period, nonagenarians achieved the same functional outcome and satisfaction rates following a THR as 70–79 year olds

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.