Instability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability. This is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; SERF, DÉCINES-CHARPIEU, FRANCE) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation. With a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients. The use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years. That's why we also recommend DM cup for all high risk of dislocation situations

THA in patients with acetabular bone defects is associated with a high risk of dislocation. Dual mobility (DM) cups are known to prevent and treat chronic instability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dislocation rate and survival of jumbo DM cups. This was a retrospective, continuous, multicenter study of all the cases of jumbo DM cup implantation between 2010 and 2017 in patients with acetabular bone loss (Paprosky 2A: 46%, 2B: 32%, 2C: 15% and 3A: 6%). The indications for implantation were revisions for aseptic loosening of the cup (n=45), aseptic loosening of the femoral stem (n=3), bipolar loosening (n=11), septic loosening (n=10), periprosthetic fracture (n=5), chronic dislocation (n=4), intraprosthetic dislocation (n=2), cup impingement (n=1), primary posttraumatic arthroplasty (n=8), and acetabular dysplasia (n=4). The jumbo cups used were COPTOS TH (SERF), which combines press-fit fixation with supplemental fixation (acetabular hook, two superior flanges with one to four screws, two acetabular pegs). A bone graft was added in 74 cases (80%). The clinical assessment consisted of the Harris hip score. The primary endpoint was surgical revision for aseptic acetabular loosening or the occurrence of a dislocation episode. In all, 93 patients were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 5.3 ± 2.3 years [0, 10]. As of the last follow-up, the acetabular cup had been changed in five cases: three due to aseptic loosening (3.2%) and two due to infection (2.1%). The survivorship free of aseptic loosening was 96.8%. Three patients (3%) suffered a dislocation. At the last follow-up visit, the mean HSS scores were 72.15, (p < 0.05). Use of a jumbo DM cup in cases of acetabular bone defects leads to satisfactory medium-term results with low dislocation and loosening rates

The benefit of using acetabular screws in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned in recent years. The disadvantages of using screws include increased operative time, risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures and metal ware breakage. Recent large registry studies have reported that screws do not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening or the presence of osteolysis. Other studies have even described an increased risk of aseptic acetabular loosening with the selective use of screws. We report findings from a multicentre cohort study. This large cohort study compared clinical outcomes between primary acetabular components that were inserted with and without screws. Independent variables included the presence (or absence) of screws, the total number of screws used and the cumulative screw length (CSL). Outcome measures included all-cause revision, acetabular component revision and acetabular component loosening. Statistical software (Stata/IC 13.1 for Mac [64-bit Intel]) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. A p-value < 0 .05 taken to be significant. There were 4,583 THAs performed in total. Screws were used in 15.9% (n=733). At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the all-cause revision rate in the screw cohort was 1.5% compared to 0.83% in the no screw cohort (p=0.085). There was no difference in acetabular component revision rates for screws (3/733, 0.41%) versus no screws (12/3,850, 0.31%) (p=0.439). The rate of acetabular loosening noted during the time of revision surgery was significantly higher when screws were used in the index procedure (2/733, 0.2%) compared to the no screw cohort (1/3,850, 0.02%) (p=0.017). There was no difference in outcomes when stratifying by the number of screws used or the cumulative screw length. Primary acetabular components do not require screws for fixation. All cause revision rates and acetabular component revision rates are comparable for the screw and the no screw cohorts. The rate of acetabular component loosening, as observed during revision surgery, is significantly higher when screws are used in the index total hip replacement

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty, one of the major challenge is the management of bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has already been popularised for tumour surgeries. The inherent advantages of PFR over allograft –prosthesis system, which is the other option for addressing severe bone loss include, early weight bearing and avoidance of non-union and disease transmission. Our study explores PFR as a possible solution for the management of complex hip revisions. Thirty consecutive hips (29 patients) that underwent PFR between January 2009 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively for their clinical and radiological outcomes. The Stanmore METS system was used in all these patients. Mean age at the index surgery (PFR) was 72.69 years (range 50–89) with number of previous hip arthroplasties ranging from 1–5. At mean follow up of 32.27 months, there were no peri-prosthetic fractures and no mechanical failure of the implants. Clearance of infection was achieved in 80% of cases. There was 1 early failure due to intra-operative perforation of femoral canal needing further revision and two were revised for deep infection. Instability was noted in 26.7% (8) of the hips, of which, 87.5% (7) needed further revision with constrained sockets. Out of these 8 hips with instability, 5 had pre-operative infection. Deep infection was noted in 20% (6) of the hips, of which, 5 were primarily revised with PFR for septic loosening. However, further surgeries were essential for only 3 patients. One patient has symptomatic aseptic acetabular loosening and 1 had asymptomatic progressive femoral side loosening (lost to follow up). Severe proximal femoral bone loss in complex revision arthroplasties has necessitated the use of PFR prosthesis. Our study supports the fact that PFR is probably a mechanically viable option for complex revisions. Significant numbers of dislocations and infections could be attributed to the poor soft tissue envelope around the hip. Further surgical techniques in the form use of dual mobility cups and silver coated PFR implants need to be explored

Orthopaedics has been earmarked as one of the specialties that could make significant savings in the National Health Service. A large number of young adults are receiving total hip replacements and there has been a trend towards using uncemented implants. We describe the clinical and functional results at minimum 19 year follow up of cemented total hip replacements in patients under the age of fifty-five in our health region between 1990 and 1997. 104 cemented THRs performed in 100 patients under 55 years were included in this study. The follow-up data had been collected prospectively in the University database. 88.46% hips showed good to excellent results at final follow-up with a mean Harris hip score of 87.9±8.64. Revision was performed in 2 hips (1.92%), one for aseptic acetabular loosening and the other for late haematogenous infection. Probable radiological loosening was seen in 14 acetabular components (14.89%) and 4 femoral components (4.25%) at final follow-up. The mean rate of acetabular wear was 0.12mm/year and was not influenced by gender or diagnosis. The mean follow-up was 21.68±2.11 years (range 19 to 26 years) and the survivorship at 19 years was 98.07%. The GIRFT report looked at the economic aspect of implant selection and found that the cost of uncemented implants was almost double that of the cemented implants. Savings of atleast £10 million a year can be made if cemented implants were used. We recommend that in a publically funded health system like the NHS, cemented implants can be used in patients under 55 with good long term functional outcomes and large savings in the healthcare costs