Objectives. Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. Methods. A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens. Results. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies. Conclusion. Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration. Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1

We hypothesised that the removal of the subchondral bone plate (SCBP) for cemented acetabular component fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers advantages over retention by improving the cement-bone interface, without jeopardising implant stability. We have previously published two-year follow-up data of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), in which 50 patients with primary osteoarthritis were randomised to either retention or removal of the SCBP. The mean age of the retention group (n = 25, 13 males) was 70.0 years (. sd. 6.8). The mean age in the removal group (n = 25, 16 males) was 70.3 years (. sd. 7.9). Now we have followed up the patients at six (retention group, n = 21; removal group, n = 20) and ten years (retention group: n = 17, removal group: n = 18), administering clinical outcome questionnaires and radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and determining the presence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) on conventional radiographs. RSA demonstrated similar translation and rotation patterns up to six years. Between six and ten years, proximal acetabular component migration and changes of inclination were larger in the retention group, although the mean differences did not reach statistical significance. Differences in migration were driven by two patients in the SCBP retention group with extensive migration versus none in the SCBP removal group. The significant difference (p < 0.001) in the development of radiolucent lines in the retention group, previously observed at two years, increased even further during the course of follow-up (p < 0.001). While recognising SCBP removal is a more demanding technique, we conclude that, wherever possible, the SCBP should be removed to improve the cement–bone interface in order to maximise acetabular component stability and longevity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:35–44

Numerous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. The original cement mantle is commonly reshaped to aid accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, their impact on final cement-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using OSCAR (Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision, ORTHOSONICS) on final cement-cement bonds. Twenty-four specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement, Stryker) into stainless-steel moulds with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, rods were removed and eight specimens allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; or 3) no treatment. Internal holes were re-cemented, then each specimen was cut into 5mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to original grouping (Instron 5567, UK), recording ultimate shear strengths. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (17 MPa, 99% CI 14.9 to 18.6, SD=4.0) was significantly lower than that measured for the control (23 MPa, 99% CI 22.5 to 23.7, SD=1.4) and burr (23 MPa, 99% CI 22.1 to 23.7, SD=1.9) groups (P<0.001, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc analysis). There was no significant difference between control and burr groups (P>0.05). Results show that cement removal technique impacts on final cement-cement bonds. This in vitro study shows a significantly weaker bond when using OSCAR prior to re-cementation into an old cement mantle, compared to cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. These results have implications for surgical practice and decision-making about specific cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need careful consideration

Removal of well-fixed, cementless, acetabular components during revision arthroplasty remains a challenging problem. Further damage to host bone may limit options for reconstruction and compromise the long-term result of the revision operation. We report the results of 31 hips with well-fixed, cementless sockets which were removed using a new cup extraction system. In all hips the socket was removed without difficulty and with minimal further bone loss

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone.

We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.

Hip dysplasia is a common cause of hip pain in young adults. Pelvic osteotomy (PO) techniques are the gold standard for treating symptomatic patients, albeit technically demanding. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the 90-day complication rate, and (2) investigate the reasons, frequency and timing of reoperations following primary PO procedures. We retrospectively analysed the National Hospital Episode Statistics database, examining all patients aged over 14 who underwent PO in NHS England hospitals from 2010 to 2023. We identified index procedures and reoperations using relevant OPCS-4 codes. We analysed patient demographics, 90-day complications, and readmission rates for ipsilateral metalwork removal, revision PO, hip arthroscopy (HA), and THR conversion, and calculated the mean time to reoperations. This study included 1,348 PO cases (mean age: 28.7±9.1 years, 89.5% female). The mean hospital stay was 5.4±3.9 days, with a 90-day readmission rate of 0.52% at a mean of 51.0±17.2 days. The most common causes were infection (0.22%) and reoperation (0.15%). The 90-day rate of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis was 0.074%. One patient died within 90 days. Overall, 810 patients (60.1%) were readmitted for a subsequent hip procedure at a mean of 2.12±1.90 years following their primary PO. Metalwork removal was required in 616 patients (45.7%) at a mean of 1.70±1.19 years. Readmission rates for revision PO, HA, and THR, were 4.23% (mean time: 2.89±0.82 years), 4.15% (mean time: 2.91±2.28 years) and 6.01% (mean time: 5.24±3.08 years) respectively. This study highlights a low 90-day complication rate following primary PO, but a high reoperation rate, mainly for metalwork removal. We provide the most up-to-date report of revision PO, HA and THR conversion rates in England. These findings provide valuable insight that can facilitate informed decision-making, expectation-setting, and post-operative planning, also establishing a benchmark for future quality improvement

Aims. In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component. Methods. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years). Results. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)). Conclusion. In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):514–523

Aims. This study reports mid-term outcomes after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) exclusively in a borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) population to provide a contrast to published outcomes for arthroscopic surgery of the hip in BHD. Methods. We identified 42 hips in 40 patients treated between January 2009 and January 2016 with BHD defined as a lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) of ≥ 18° but < 25°. A minimum five-year follow-up was available. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) including Tegner score, subjective hip value (SHV), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed. The following morphological parameters were evaluated: LCEA, acetabular index (AI), α angle, Tönnis staging, acetabular retroversion, femoral version, femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof index (FEAR), iliocapsularis to rectus femoris ratio (IC/RF), and labral and ligamentum teres (LT) pathology. Results. The mean follow-up was 96 months (67 to 139). The SHV, mHHS, WOMAC, and Tegner scores significantly improved (p < 0.001) at last follow-up. According to SHV and mHHS, there were three hips (7%) with poor results (SHV < 70), three (7%) with a fair score (70 to 79), eight (19%) with good results (80 to 89), and 28 (67%) who scored excellent (> 90) at the last follow-up. There were 11 subsequent operations: nine implant removals due to local irritation, one resection of postoperative heterotopic ossification, and one hip arthroscopy for intra-articular adhesions. No hips were converted to total hip arthroplasty at last follow-up. The presence of preoperative labral lesions or LT lesions did not influence any PROMs at last follow-up. From the three hips that had poor PROMs, two have developed severe osteoarthritis (> Tönnis II), presumably due to surgical overcorrection (postoperative AI < -10°). Conclusion. PAO is reliable in treating BHD with favourable mid-term outcomes. Concomitant LT and labral lesions did not negatively influence outcomes in our cohort. Technical accuracy with avoidance of overcorrection is essential in achieving successful outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):735–742

Aims. The aims of the study were to report for a cohort aged younger than 40 years: 1) indications for HRA; 2) patient-reported outcomes in terms of the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS); 3) dislocation rate; and 4) revision rate. Methods. This retrospective analysis identified 267 hips from 224 patients who underwent an hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) from a single fellowship-trained surgeon using the direct lateral approach between 2007 and 2019. Inclusion criteria was minimum two-year follow-up, and age younger than 40 years. Patients were followed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results. A total of 217 hips (81%) were included for follow-up analysis at a mean of 3.8 years. Of the 23 females who underwent HRA, none were revised, and the median head size was 46 mm (compared to 50 mm for males). The most common indication for HRA was femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (n = 133), and avascular necrosis ( (n = 53). Mean postoperative HHS was 100 at two and five years. No dislocations occurred. A total of four hips (1.8%) required reoperation for resection of heterotopic ossification, removal of components for infection, and subsidence with loosening. The overall revision rate was 0.9%. Conclusion. For younger patients with higher functional expectations and increased lifetime risk for revision, HRA is an excellent bone preserving intervention carrying low complication rates, revision rates, and excellent patient outcomes without lifetime restrictions allowing these patients to return to activity and sport. Thus, in younger male patients with end-stage hip disease and higher demands, referral to a high-volume HRA surgeon should be considered. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):408–415

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Femoroacetabular impingement is a prearthritic deformity frequently associated with early chondral damage. Several techniques exist for restoring larger cartilage defects. While AMIC proved to be an effective treatment in knee and ankle, there are only short-term data available in hip. This study aimed to investigate the mid-term clinical outcome of patients with chondral lesions treated by AMIC and evaluate the quality of repair tissue via MRI. This retrospective, single center study includes 18 patients undergoing surgical hip dislocation for FAI between 2013 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were: cam or pincer-type FAI, femoral or acetabular chondral lesions > 1 cm. 2. , (IRCS III-IV). Due to exclusion criteria and loss-to-follow-up 9 patients (10 hips) could be included. Patient reported outcome measures included Oxford Hip Score (OHS) & Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI)). MRIs were evaluated using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score. None of the patients underwent revision surgery except screw removals from the greater trochanter. Followup data indicate a satisfactory to good hip function at 5 years: PROMS improved from pre- to postop at 5 years: OHS from 38.1 to 43.4, COMI from to 1.8 and UCLA from 4 to 8.1 respectively. MOCART score was 67.5 postoperatively. Subgrouping showed slightly better results for acetabular defects (Ø 69.4) compared femoral defects (Ø 60). Based on the reported mid-term results, we consider AMIC as a valuable treatment option for larger chondral defects of the hip

High doses of intra-articular (IA) antibiotics has been shown to effectively achieve a minimal biofilm eradication concentration which could mitigate the need for removal of infected but well-ingrown cementless components of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there are concerns that percutaneous catheters could lead to multi-resistance or multi-organism peri-prosthetic joint infections (PJI) following single stage THA revisions for PJI. Eighteen single-stage revision procedures were performed for acute (N=9) or chronic (N=9) PJI following a primary (N=12) or revision (N=6) cementless THA. Modular and loosened components were replaced. All well ingrown components were retained. Two Hickmann catheters were placed in the joint space. Along with intravenous antibiotics, IA antibiotics were injected twice a day for two weeks, followed by 3 months of oral antibiotics. Per-operative cultures demonstrated 4 multi-bacterial PJIs. None of the patients developed post-operatively an AB related renal or systemic dysfunction. At a mean follow-up of 38 months [range, 8–72] all patients had normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell count. Four had a slightly elevated C-reactive protein but were completely symptom free and did not show any sign of loosening at a mean of 27 months [range, 16–59]. Addition of high doses of IA antibiotics following single-stage revision for PJI in cementless THA, is an effective and safe treatment option that allows for retention of well-ingrown components. We found no evidence for residual implant infection or catheter induced multi-resistance. Total hip arthroplasty, revision surgery, Periprosthetic Joint Infection, Intra-articular antibiotics. Level 4 (Case series)

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is the preferred treatment for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia in adolescents and young adults. There remains a lack of consensus regarding whether intra-articular work such as labral repair or improvement of femoral offset should be performed at the time of PAO or addressed subsequent to PAO if symptoms warrant. The purpose was to determine the rate of subsequent hip arthroscopy (HA) in a contemporary PAO cohort with no intra-articular work performed at the time of PAO. From June 2012 to March 2022, 368 rectus sparing PAOs were performed and followed for a minimum of one year (mean 5.9 years). The average age was 24 (range 14–46) and 89% were female. Patients were evaluated at last follow-up for patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). Clinical records were reviewed for complications or subsequent surgery. Radiographs were reviewed for the following acetabular parameters: LCEA, ACEA, AI, and the alpha-angle (AA). Patients were cross-referenced from the two largest hospital systems in our area to determine if subsequent HA was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze risk factors for HA. 16 hips (15 patients) (4.4%) underwent subsequent HA with labral repair and femoral osteochondroplasty most common. For those with a minimum of two years of follow-up, 5.3% underwent subsequent HA. No hips underwent THA; one revision PAO was performed. 14 hips experienced a complication and 99 underwent hardware removal. All PROMs improved significantly post-operatively. Radiographically 80% of hips were in goal for acetabular correction parameters with no significant differences between those who underwent subsequent HA and those who did not. Rectus sparing PAO is associated with a low rate of subsequent HA for intra-articular pathology at 5-year follow-up. Acetabular correction alone may be sufficient as the primary intervention for the majority of patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia

Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a frequent cause of revision and patients with intrinsic risk factors have been identified. The use of dual mobility (DM) cup has shown great efficiency in preventing dislocation, with questions regarding selective or absolute use. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of single mobility THA (SM-THA) and DM-THA, when used for selected patients. This retrospective continuous cohort study evaluated 490 patients of whom 275 received SM-THA and 215 received DM-THA. There were 304 primary osteoarthritis (62%), 121 femoral neck fractures (24%) and 65 other indications (14%). The surgical approach was anterior (AA) in 79% and posterior (PA) in 21% of cases. In the DM-THA group, 189 patients (87%) presented at least one dislocation risk factor compared to 128 patients (46%) in the SM-THA group. The primary outcome was revision for all causes, with or without implant removal. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay. There was no difference in all cause revision at two years follow up with 9 procedures (3.2%) in SM-THA group and 11 in DM-THA group (5.1%) (p=0.3). There were 3 dislocations in SM-THA group (3 AA) and 3 in DM-THA group (2 PA and 1 AA) (p=0.4). The length of stay was significantly longer in DM-THA group with 7 days (2–12) compared to 4 days (1–7) in SM-THA group (p=0.001). SM-THA and DM-THA are two complementary devices in the management of patients requiring primary THA. SM-THA is a safe option for patients without dislocation risk factors, especially when using AA. The identification of such factors is important to select patients requiring DM-THA and provide reproducible outcomes in a University Hospital practice including various levels of surgeon experience

Hip precautions following total hip arthroplasty (THA) limits flexion, adduction and internal rotation, yet these precautions cause unnecessary psychological stress. This study aims to assess bony and implant impingement using virtual models from actual patient's bony morphology and spinopelvic parameters to deduce whether hip precautions are necessary with precise implant positioning in the Asian population. Individualized sitting and standing sacral slope data of robotic THAs performed at two tertiary referral centers in Hong Kong was inputted into the simulation system based on patients’ pre-operative sitting and standing lumbar spine X-rays. Three-dimensional dynamic models were reconstructed using the Stryker Mako THA 4.0 software to assess bony and implant impingement both anteriorly and posteriorly, with default cup placement at 40° inclination and 20° anteversion. Femoral anteversion followed individual patient's native version. A 36mm hip ball was chosen for all cups equal or above 48mm and 32mm for those below. Anterior impingement was assessed by hip flexion and posterior impingement was assessed by hip extension. 113 patients were included. At neutral rotation and adduction, no patients had anterior implant impingement at hip flexion of 100°. 1.7% had impingement at 110°, 3.5% had impingement at 120°, 9.7% had impingement at 130°. With 20° of internal rotation and adduction, 0.8% had anterior implant impingement at hip flexion of 90°, 7.1% had impingement at 100° and 18.5% had impingement at 110°. With the hip externally rotated by 20°, 0.8% of patients had posterior implant impingement, and 8.8% bony impingement at 0° extension. With enabling technology allowing accurate component positioning, hip precautions without limiting forward flexion in neutral position is safe given precise implant positioning and adequate osteophyte removal. Patients should only be cautioned about combined internal rotation, adduction with flexion

Our understanding of pre-arthritic hip disease has evolved tremendously but challenges remain in categorizing diagnosis, which ultimately impacts choice of treatments and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing four different condition groups within hip preservation surgery by a group of fellowship-trained surgeons. From 2018 to 2021, 380 patients underwent hip preservation surgery at our center and were classified into five condition groups: dysplasia: 82 (21.6%), femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI): 173 (45.4%), isolated labral tear: 103 (27.1%), failed hip preservation: 20 (5.3%) and history of childhood disease/other: 2 (0.5%). International hip outcomes Tool 12 (IHOT-12), numeric pain score and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) were collected pre-operatively and at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively, with 94% and 82% follow-up rate respectively. Arthroscopy (75.5%) was the most common procedure followed by peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO) (22.4%) and surgical dislocation (2.1%). Re-operation rate were respectively 18.3% (15), 5.8% (10), 4.9% (5), 30% (6) and 0%. There were 36 re-operations in the cohort, 14 (39%) for unintended consequences of initial surgery, 10 (28%) for mal-correction leading to a repeat operation, 8 (22%) progression of arthritis, and 4 (11%) for incorrect initial diagnosis/intervention. Most common re-operations were hardware removal 31% (7 PAO, 3 surgical hip dislocation and 1 femoral de-rotational osteotomy), arthroscopy 31% (11) and arthroplasty 28% (10). All groups had significant improvements in their IHOT-12 as well as PROMIS physical and numerical pain scales, except those with failed hip preservation. Dysplasia group showed a slower recovery. Overall, this study demonstrated a clear relation between the condition groups, their respective intervention and the significant improvements in PROMs with isolated labral pathology being a valid diagnosis. Establishing tertiary referral centers for hip preservation and longer follow-up is needed to monitor the overall survivorship of these various procedures

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery. The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained, and dual mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months). One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery; one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (12.2%) underwent further procedures; two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 2.4 days, p<0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p<0.001 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium). In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims. In UK there are around 76,000 hip fractures occur each year 10% to 15% of which are undisplaced intracapsular. There is considerable debate whether internal fixation is the most appropriate treatment for undisplaced fractures in older patients. This study describes cannulated hip screws survivorship analysis for patients aged ≥ 60 years with undisplaced intra-capsular fractures. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged ≥ 60 years who had cannulated screws fixation for Garden I and II fractures in a teaching hospital between March 2013 and March 2016. The primary outcome was further same-side hip surgery. Descriptive statistics were used and Kaplan-Meier estimates calculated for implant survival. Results. A total of 114 operations were performed on 112 patients with a mean age of 80.2 years (SD 8.9). The 30-day and one-year mortality were 1% (n = 1) and 13% (n = 15), respectively. Median follow-up was 6.6 years (interquartile range 6.0 to 7.3). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a survivorship of 95% at one year and 90% at five years (95% confidence interval 84% to 95%) for cannulated screws. Nine patients underwent further hip surgery: four revision to total hip arthroplasty, one revision to hemiarthroplasty, three removals of screws, and one haematoma washout. Posterior tilt was assessable in 106 patients; subsequent surgery was required in two of the six patients identified with a posterior angle > 20° (p = 0.035 vs angle < 20°). Of the 100 patients with angle < 20°, five-year survivorship was 91%, with seven patients requiring further surgery. Conclusion. This study of cannulated hip screw fixation for undisplaced fractures in patients aged ≥ 60 years reveals a construct survivorship without further operation of 90% at five years. Cannulated screws can be considered a safe reliable treatment option for Garden I and II fractures. Caution should be taken if posterior tilt angle on lateral view exceeds 20°, due to a higher failure rate and reoperation, and considered for similar management to Garden III and IV injuries. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):182–188