Aims. Complex total hip arthroplasty (THA) with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy is necessary in conditions other than developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and septic arthritis sequelae with significant proximal femur migration. Our aim was to evaluate the hip centre restoration with THAs in these hips. Methods. In all, 27 THAs in 25 patients requiring THA with femoral shortening between 2012 and 2019 were assessed. Bilateral shortening was required in two patients. Subtrochanteric shortening was required in 14 out of 27 hips (51.9%) with aetiology other than DDH or septic arthritis. Vertical centre of rotation (VCOR), horizontal centre of rotation, offset, and functional outcome was calculated. The mean followup was 24.4 months (5 to 92 months). Results. The mean VCOR was 17.43 mm (9.5 to 27 mm) and horizontal centre of rotation (HCOR) was 24.79 mm (17.2 to 37.6 mm). Dislocation at three months following acetabulum reconstruction required femoral shortening for offset correction and hip centre restoration in one hip. Mean horizontal offset was 39.72 (32.7 to 48.2 mm) compared to 42.89 (26.7 to 50.6 mm) on the normal side. Mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 22.64 (14 to 35) improved to 79.43 (68 to 92). Mean pre-operative shortening was 3.95 cm (2 to 8 cm). Residual limb length discrepancy was 1.5 cm (0 to 2 cm). Sciatic neuropraxia in two patients recovered by six months, and femoral neuropraxia in one hip recovered by 12 months. Mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was 13.92 (9 to 19). Mean 12-item short form survey (SF-12) physical scores of 50.6 and mental of 60.12 were obtained. Conclusion. THA with subtrochanteric shortening is valuable in complex hips with high dislocation. The restoration of the hip centre of rotation and offset is important in these hips. Level of evidence IV. Femoral shortening useful in conditions other than DDH and septic sequelae. Restoration of hip centre combined with offset to be planned and ensured

Background. Total hip arthroplasty requires proper sizing and placing of implants to ensure excellent outcomes and reduce complications. Calculation of femoral offset is an important consideration for optimal reconstruction of the hip biomechanics. Femoral offset can be measured on plain films or with flouroscopy if the x-ray beam is perpendicular to the plane determined by the angle between the neck axis and femoral shaft axis. This distance is evident only with the femur in the correct degree of rotation. Though pre-operative templating for femoral component size and offset is a regular accepted practice, a consistent method for assessing correct femoral rotation on the AP x-ray view has not been established. Purpose/Hypthesis. The purpose of the current study was to establish and validate a method for identifying radiographic landmarks on the proximal femur that would reliably indicate that the femur was in the proper degree of rotation to represent the true offset from the head center to shaft center. Methods. Lead markers were placed on areas of the greater trochanter followed by xrays. Markers placed on locations on the anterior and posterior greater trochanter duplicated reliable radiographic lines. Proximal femurs were dissected to the bone and rotated about their long axis from neutral rotation, defined at the point when the anterior and posterior aspects of the greater trochanter were aligned radiographically. Radiographs were taken at 2 degree increments in both internal and external rotation until 10 degrees, then again at 30 degrees. A custom script was used to calculate the femoral offset at these rotations at these locations. Descriptive analysis was performed to assess the relationship between rotation angle and femoral offset. Results. The mean femoral offset was observed to be 38.21 mm (SD 4.93, median 37.82, range 30.52–46.27). The mean rotation of max offset was −3.6° (SD 5.6, median −6, range −10 to +8). The average underestimation error (the difference between calculated offset at neutral rotation and observed maximum femoral offset) was 0.92 mm (median 0.74, range 0 to 2.07 mm). Conclusion. Alignment of the radiographic lines created by the anterior and posterior aspects of the greater trochanter is a reliable and accurate rotational positioning method for measuring femoral offset when using plain films or fluoroscopy. It is a feasible method that can be applied preoperatively and/or intraoperatively to optimize accuracy of femoral offset for THA procedures. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Because the femoral head/neck junction is preserved in hip resurfacing, patients may be at greater risk of impingement, leading to abnormal wear patterns and pain. We assessed femoral head/neck offset in 63 hips undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and in 56 hips presenting with non-arthritic pain secondary to femoroacetabular impingement. Most hips undergoing resurfacing (57%; 36) had an offset ratio ≤ 0.15 pre-operatively and required greater correction of offset at operation than the rest of the group. In the non-arthritic hips the mean offset ratio was 0.137 (0.04 to 0.23), with the offset ratio correlating negatively to an increasing α angle. An offset ratio ≤ 0.15 had a 9.5-fold increased relative risk of having an α angle ≥ 50.5°. Most hips undergoing resurfacing have an abnormal femoral head/neck offset, which is best assessed in the sagittal plane

Aims. Traditionally, total hip arthroplasty (THA) templating has been performed on anteroposterior (AP) pelvis radiographs. Recently, additional AP hip radiographs have been recommended for accurate measurement of the femoral offset (FO). To verify this claim, this study aimed to establish quantitative data of the measurement error of the FO in relation to leg position and X-ray source position using a newly developed geometric model and clinical data. Methods. We analyzed the FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs in a prospective consecutive series of 55 patients undergoing unilateral primary THA for hip osteoarthritis. To determine sample size, a power analysis was performed. Patients’ position and X-ray beam setting followed a standardized protocol to achieve reproducible projections. All images were calibrated with the KingMark calibration system. In addition, a geometric model was created to evaluate both the effects of leg position (rotation and abduction/adduction) and the effects of X-ray source position on FO measurement. Results. The mean FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs were 38.0 mm (SD 6.4) and 36.6 mm (SD 6.3) (p < 0.001), respectively. Radiological view had a smaller effect on FO measurement than inaccurate leg positioning. The model showed a non-linear relationship between projected FO and femoral neck orientation; at 30° external neck rotation (with reference to the detector plane), a true FO of 40 mm was underestimated by up to 20% (7.8 mm). With a neutral to mild external neck rotation (≤ 15°), the underestimation was less than 7% (2.7 mm). The effect of abduction and adduction was negligible. Conclusion. For routine THA templating, an AP pelvis radiograph remains the gold standard. Only patients with femoral neck malrotation > 15° on the AP pelvis view, e.g. due to external rotation contracture, should receive further imaging. Options include an additional AP hip view with elevation of the entire affected hip to align the femoral neck more parallel to the detector, or a CT scan in more severe cases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):795–803

Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired t-tests. There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA

Several factors have been implicated in unsatisfactory results after total hip replacement (THR). We examined whether femoral offset, as measured on digitised post-operative radiographs, was associated with pain after THR. The routine post-operative radiographs of 362 patients (230 women and 132 men, mean age 70.0 years (35.2 to 90.5)) who received primary unilateral THRs of varying designs were measured after calibration. The femoral offset was calculated using the known dimensions of the implants to control for femoral rotation. Femoral offset was categorised into three groups: normal offset (within 5 mm of the height-adjusted femoral offset), low offset and high offset. We determined the associations to the absolute final score and the improvement in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores at three, six, 12 and 24 months, adjusting for confounding variables. The amount of femoral offset was associated with the mean WOMAC pain subscale score at all points of follow-up, with the low-offset group reporting less WOMAC pain than the normal or high-offset groups (six months: 7.01 (. sd. 11.69) vs 12.26 (. sd. 15.10) vs 13.10 (. sd. 16.20), p = 0.006; 12 months: 6.55 (. sd. 11.09) vs 9.73 (. sd. 13.76) vs 13.46 (. sd. 18.39), p = 0.010; 24 months: 5.84 (. sd. 10.23) vs 9.60 (. sd. 14.43) vs 13.12 (. sd. 17.43), p = 0.004). When adjusting for confounding variables, including age and gender, the greatest improvement was seen in the low-offset group, with the normal-offset group demonstrating more improvement than the high-offset group. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:36–42

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement and to treat it, the causes must first be understood. Patient factors include age greater than 70 years, medical comorbidities, female gender, ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors, and patient education. Surgeon factors include the annual quantity of procedures and experience, the surgical approach, adequate restoration of femoral offset and leg length, component position, and soft-tissue or bony impingement. Implant factors include the design of the head and neck region, and so-called skirts on longer neck lengths. There should be offset choices available in order to restore soft-tissue tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed may result in impingement and dislocation. Late dislocation may result from polyethylene wear, soft-tissue destruction, trochanteric or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection. Understanding the causes of hip dislocation facilitates prevention in a majority of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification of patients with a high offset in whom inadequate restoration of offset will reduce soft-tissue tension and abductor efficiency. Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement. Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur early, and are preventable with proper instructions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:67–9

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to identify any difference in femoral offset as measured on pre-operative anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the pelvis, AP radiographs of the hip and corresponding CT scans in a consecutive series of 100 patients with primary end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip (43 men and 57 women with a mean age of 61 years (45 to 74) and a mean body mass index of 28 kg/m. 2. (20 to 45)). Patients were positioned according to a standardised protocol to achieve reproducible projection and all images were calibrated. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was evaluated and agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. In the entire cohort, the mean femoral offset was 39.0 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 40.6) on radiographs of the pelvis, 44.0 mm (95% CI 42.4 to 45.6) on radiographs of the hip and 44.7 mm (95% CI 43.5 to 45.9) on CT scans. AP radiographs of the pelvis underestimated femoral offset by 13% when compared with CT (p < 0.001). No difference in mean femoral offset was seen between AP radiographs of the hip and CT (p = 0.191). Our results suggest that femoral offset is significantly underestimated on AP radiographs of the pelvis but can be reliably and accurately assessed on AP radiographs of the hip in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis. We, therefore, recommend that additional AP radiographs of the hip are obtained routinely for the pre-operative assessment of femoral offset when templating before total hip replacement

The accurate reconstruction of hip anatomy and biomechanics is thought to be important in achieveing good clinical outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). To this end some newer hip designs have introduced further modularity into the design of the femoral component such that neck­shaft angle and anteversion, which can be adjusted intra-operatively. The clinical effect of this increased modularity is unknown. We have investigated the changes in these anatomical parameters following conventional THA with a prosthesis of predetermined neck–shaft angle and assessed the effect of changes in the hip anatomy on clinical outcomes.

In total, 44 patients (mean age 65.3 years (standard deviation (sd) 7); 17 male/27 female; mean body mass index 26.9 (kg/m²) (sd 3.1)) underwent a pre- and post-operative three-dimensional CT scanning of the hip. The pre- and post-operative neck–shaft angle, offset, hip centre of rotation, femoral anteversion, and stem alignment were measured. Additionally, a functional assessment and pain score were evaluated before surgery and at one year post-operatively and related to the post-operative anatomical changes.

The mean pre-operative neck–shaft angle was significantly increased by 2.8° from 128° (sd 6.2; 119° to 147°) to 131° (sd 2.1; 127° to 136°) (p = 0.009). The mean pre-operative anteversion was 24.9° (sd 8; 7.9 to 39.1) and reduced to 7.4° (sd 7.3; -11.6° to 25.9°) post-operatively (p < 0.001). The post-operative changes had no influence on function and pain. Using a standard uncemented femoral component, high pre- and post-operative variability of femoral anteversion and neck–shaft angles was found with a significant decrease of the post-operative anteversion and slight increase of the neck–shaft angles, but without any impact on clinical outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1615–22.

Aims. Registry studies on modified acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner designs are limited. We investigated the influence of standard and modified PE acetabular liner designs on the revision rate for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We analyzed 151,096 primary cementless THAs from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between November 2012 and November 2020. Cumulative incidence of revision for mechanical complications for standard and four modified PE liners (lipped, offset, angulated/offset, and angulated) was determined using competing risk analysis at one and seven years. Confounders were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results. Median follow-up was 868 days (interquartile range 418 to 1,364). The offset liner design reduced the risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.92)), while the angulated/offset liner increased the risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.36)). The cumulative incidence of revision was lowest for the offset liner at one and seven years (1.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) and 1.8% (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0)). No difference was found between standard, lipped, and angulated liner designs. Higher age at index primary THA and an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 increased the revision risk in the first year after surgery. Implantation of a higher proportion of a single design of liner in a hospital reduced revision risk slightly but significantly (p = 0.001). Conclusion. The use of standard acetabular component liners remains a good choice in primary uncemented THA, as most modified liner designs were not associated with a reduced risk of revision for mechanical failure. Offset liner designs were found to be beneficial and angulated/offset liner designs were associated with higher risks of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):801–810

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Aims. Hip arthroplasty does not always restore normal anatomy. This is due to inaccurate surgery or lack of stem sizes. We evaluated the aptitude of four total hip arthroplasty systems to restore an anatomical and medialized hip rotation centre. Methods. Using 3D templating software in 49 CT scans of non-deformed femora, we virtually implanted: 1) small uncemented calcar-guided stems with two offset options (Optimys, Mathys), 2) uncemented straight stems with two offset options (Summit, DePuy Synthes), 3) cemented undersized stems (Exeter philosophy) with three offset options (CPT, ZimmerBiomet), and 4) cemented line-to-line stems (Kerboul philosophy) with proportional offsets (Centris, Mathys). We measured the distance between the templated and the anatomical and 5 mm medialized hip rotation centre. Results. Both rotation centres could be restored within 5 mm in 94% and 92% of cases, respectively. The cemented undersized stem performed best, combining freedom of stem positioning and a large offset range. The uncemented straight stem performed well because of its large and well-chosen offset range, and despite the need for cortical bone contact limiting stem positioning. The cemented line-to-line stem performed less well due to a small range of sizes and offsets. The uncemented calcar-guided stem performed worst, despite 24 sizes and a large and well-chosen offset range. This was attributed to the calcar curvature restricting the stem insertion depth along the femoral axis. Conclusion. In the majority of non-deformed femora, leg length, offset, and anteversion can be restored accurately with non-modular stems during 3D templating. Failure to restore hip biomechanics is mostly due to surgical inaccuracy. Small calcar guided stems offer no advantage to restore hip biomechanics compared to more traditional designs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):476–485

Aims. To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening. Methods. The National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset was analyzed for primary THAs performed between 2003 and 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were included. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using log-binomial regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking, and prosthetic head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death. Results. The distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW 81.2%; hooded 18.7%; and offset reorientating 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.5%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.4%) were for instability and 838 (0.4%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.31 (p < 0.001) and 4.12 (p = 0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.65 (p < 0.001) in the hooded group and 13.61 (p < 0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first three months. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision after cemented THA for instability and for loosening when a hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to a LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1669–1677

Aims. Manual impaction, with a mallet and introducer, remains the standard method of installing cementless acetabular cups during total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to quantify the accuracy and precision of manual impaction strikes during the seating of an acetabular component. This understanding aims to help improve impaction surgical techniques and inform the development of future technologies. Methods. Posterior approach THAs were carried out on three cadavers by an expert orthopaedic surgeon. An instrumented mallet and introducer were used to insert cementless acetabular cups. The motion of the mallet, relative to the introducer, was analyzed for a total of 110 strikes split into low-, medium-, and high-effort strikes. Three parameters were extracted from these data: strike vector, strike offset, and mallet face alignment. Results. The force vector of the mallet strike, relative to the introducer axis, was misaligned by an average of 18.1°, resulting in an average wasted strike energy of 6.1%. Furthermore, the mean strike offset was 19.8 mm from the centre of the introducer axis and the mallet face, relative to the introducer strike face, was misaligned by a mean angle of 15.2° from the introducer strike face. Conclusion. The direction of the impact vector in manual impaction lacks both accuracy and precision. There is an opportunity to improve this through more advanced impaction instruments or surgical training. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(4):193–200

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine if uncemented acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner geometry, and lip size, influenced the risk of revision for instability or loosening. Methods. A total of 202,511 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with uncemented acetabular components were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset between 2003 and 2017. The effect of liner geometry on the risk of revision for instability or loosening was investigated using competing risk regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size, and polyethylene crosslinking. Stratified analyses by surgical approach were performed, including pairwise comparisons of liner geometries. Results. The distribution of liner geometries were neutral (39.4%; 79,822), 10° (34.5%; 69,894), 15° (21.6%; 43,722), offset reorientating (2.8%; 5705), offset neutral (0.9%; 1,767), and 20° (0.8%; 1,601). There were 690 (0.34%) revisions for instability. Compared to neutral liners, the adjusted subhazard ratios of revision for instability were: 10°, 0.64 (p < 0.001); 15°, 0.48 (p < 0.001); and offset reorientating, 1.6 (p = 0.010). No association was found with other geometries. 10° and 15° liners had a time-dependent lower risk of revision for instability within the first 1.2 years. In posterior approaches, 10° and 15° liners had a lower risk of revision for instability, with no significant difference between them. The protective effect of lipped over neutral liners was not observed in laterally approached THAs. There were 604 (0.3%) revisions for loosening, but no association between liner geometry and revision for loosening was found. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a lower risk of revision for instability in posterior approach THAs with 10° or 15° lipped liners compared to neutral liners, but no significant difference between these lip sizes. A higher revision risk is seen with offset reorientating liners. The benefit of lipped geometries against revision for instability was not seen in laterally approached THAs. Liner geometry does not seem to influence the risk of revision for loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1774–1782

Aims. Hip arthroplasty aims to accurately recreate joint biomechanics. Considerable attention has been paid to vertical and horizontal offset, but femoral head centre in the anteroposterior (AP) plane has received little attention. This study investigates the accuracy of restoration of joint centre of rotation in the AP plane. Methods. Postoperative CT scans of 40 patients who underwent unilateral uncemented total hip arthroplasty were analyzed. Anteroposterior offset (APO) and femoral anteversion were measured on both the operated and non-operated sides. Sagittal tilt of the femoral stem was also measured. APO measured on axial slices was defined as the perpendicular distance between a line drawn from the anterior most point of the proximal femur (anterior reference line) to the centre of the femoral head. The anterior reference line was made parallel to the posterior condylar axis of the knee to correct for rotation. Results. Overall, 26/40 hips had a centre of rotation displaced posteriorly compared to the contralateral hip, increasing to 33/40 once corrected for sagittal tilt, with a mean posterior displacement of 7 mm. Linear regression analysis indicated that stem anteversion needed to be increased by 10.8° to recreate the head centre in the AP plane. Merely matching the native version would result in a 12 mm posterior displacement. Conclusion. This study demonstrates the significant incidence of posterior displacement of the head centre in uncemented hip arthroplasty. Effects of such displacement include a reduction in impingement free range of motion, potential alterations in muscle force vectors and lever arms, and impaired proprioception due to muscle fibre reorientation. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(3):180–188

Special acetabular polyethylene (PE) liners are intended to increase the stability of the artificial hip joint, yet registry studies on them are limited. The pupose of this study was to investigate differences in revision rates for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) with standard and special PE acetabular liners in patients with ostheoarthritis. Data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between 2012 until 2020 were analysed. Patients with diagnosed ostheoarthritis of the hip without relevant prior surgeries, who received a primary cementless THA with a ceramic/PE bearing articulation were included. Cumulative incidences of revision for mechanical complications for Standard and 4 special PE liners (Lipped, Increased Offset, Angulated, Angulated|Increased Offset) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier Estimator. Confounding factors were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. In total 151.104 cases were included. 7-year unadjusted revision-free survival for mechanical complications compared to Standard liners (97.7%) was lower for Angulated (97.4%), Lipped (97.2%) and Angulated|Increased Offset liners (94.7%), but higher for Increased Offset liners (98.1%). Risk of revision for mechanical complications was not significantly different between Standard, Lipped and Angulated liners. Increased Offset liners (HR=0.68; 95% CI=0.5–0.92) reduced, while Angulated|Increased Offset liners (HR= 1.81; 95% CI=1.38–2.36) increased the risk. Higher age at admission and an Elixhauser comorbidity index greater zero increased the risk, whereas a larger liner share slightly reduced the risk. Only the use of Increased Offset liners reduced the risk of revision for mechanical complications compared to Standard liners — other special liners did not

Cemented acetabular components commonly have a long posterior wall (LPW). Alternative components have a hooded or offset reorientating geometry, theoretically to reduce the risk of THR instability. We aimed to determine if cemented acetabular component geometry influences the risk of revision surgery for instability or loosening. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) dataset was analysed for primary THAs performed between 2003 – 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were identified. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using binomial regression adjusting for age, gender, ASA grade, diagnosis, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking and head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death. Among the cohort of subjects included, the distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW – 81.2%, hooded – 18.7% and offset reorientating – 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.47%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.36%) were for instability and 838 (0.37%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.29 (p<0.001) and 4.12 (p=0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.43 (p<0.001) in the hooded group and 11.47 (p<0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first 6 months. This Registry based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision THA for instability and for loosening when a cemented hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to an LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. The study analyzed a consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent robotic-arm assisted THA between September 2018 and December 2019. Of these, 30 patients had DDH and were classified according to the Crowe type. Acetabular component alignment and 3D positions were measured using pre- and postoperative CT data. The absolute differences of cup alignment and 3D position were compared between DDH and non-DDH patients. Moreover, these differences were analyzed in relation to the severity of DDH. The discrepancy of leg length and combined offset compared with contralateral hip were measured. Results. The mean values of absolute differences (postoperative CT-preoperative plan) were 1.7° (standard deviation (SD) 2.0) (inclination) and 2.5° (SD 2.1°) (anteversion) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between non-DDH and DDH patients. The mean absolute differences for 3D cup position were 1.1 mm (SD 1.0) (coronal plane) and 1.2 mm (SD 2.1) (axial plane) in DDH patients, and no significant differences were found between two groups. No significant difference was found either in cup alignment between postoperative CT and navigation record after cup screws or in the severity of DDH. Excellent restoration of leg length and combined offset were achieved in both groups. Conclusion. We demonstrated that robotic-assisted THA may achieve precise cup positioning in DDH patients, and may be useful in those with severe DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(10):629–638

Sequelae of Legg-Calve -Perthes disease (LCPD) and treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) can present a coxa breva or coxa magna deformity, sometimes associated with coxa vara. This unique deformity decreases the efficiency of the abductor mechanism, causing a Trendelenburg gait and hip pain, leg length discrepancy and leads to intra- and extra-articular impingement, and eventually osteoarthritis. Several surgical techniques have been advocated to treat this kind deformity, such as great trochanter transfer, relative femoral neck lengthening. We evaluated primary results of true femoral neck-lengthening osteotomy (TFNLO) in combination with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for treatment of Coxa Breva through surgical hip dislocation (SHD). Fourteen patients with Coxa Breva received true femoral neck lengthening osteotomy in combination of PAO through SHD between March 2020 and October 2023. Ten patients with minimum 1 year followed-up were retrospectively reviewed clinically and radiographically. Eight patients had Perthes disease, 2 had DDH received closed reduction and fixation during childhood. The mean age at surgery was 16 years (range, 12 to 31 years). Clinical findings, radiographic analyses including the change in horizontal femoral offset and the leg length discrepancy as well as complications were assessed. Horizontal femoral offset improved 19.5mm(6–28mm). Limb length increase 16.8mm(11–30mm). Mean HHS increased from 80.6(66–91) to 91.8(88–96). Complication: screw broken in 1(no need operation). Asymptomatic fibrous union of the great trochanter was found in 1. No infection and joint space narrow as well as nerve palsy happened. TFNLO combined with PAO can be effective for the treatment of patients with Coxa breva. But long term follow up is warranted