We have previously reported on the improved all-cause revision and improved revision for instability risk in lipped liner THAs using the NJR dataset. These findings corroborate studies from the Australian (AOANJRR) and New Zealand (NZOA) joint registries. The optimal orientation of the lip in THAs utilising a lipped liner remains unclear to many surgeons. The aim of this study was to identify impingement-free optimal liner orientations whilst considering femoral stem version, cup inclination and cup version.

A cementless THA kinematic model was developed using a 20 degree XLPE liner. Physiological ROM and provocative dislocation manoeuvre analyses were performed. A total of 9 cup positions were analysed (inclination 30–40–50 degrees, anteversion 5-15-25 degrees) and combined with 3 stem positions (anteversion 0-15-30 degrees) and 5 lip orientations (right hip 11 to 7 o'clock).

Some lip orientation/component position combinations lead to impingement within the physiological ROM range. Using a lipped liner increases the femoral head travel distance prior to dislocation when impingement occurs in the plane of the lip. In THAs with a cup inclination of 30 and 40 degrees, inferior lip orientations (7–8 o'clock for a right hip) performed best. Superior lip orientation performed best with a cup inclination of 50 degrees. Femoral stem version has a significant effect on the range of movement prior to impingement and hence the preferred lip orientation.

The optimal orientation of the lip in lipped liner THA is dependent on the position of both the acetabular and femoral components. In the common component orientation combination of stem anteversion 15, cup inclination 40 and cup anteversion 15, the optimal lip orientation was postero-inferiorly (8 o'clock for a right hip). Preventing impingement during physiological ROM is possible with appropriate lip liner orientation.

Our previous work presented at BHS revealed a reduced risk of revision for all reasons in THAs using lipped (asymmetric) liners. Some audience members felt that this finding may be due to unaccounted confounders and the hip surgery community remains sceptical.

A fully adjusted Cox model was built after exploratory Kaplan-Meier analyses. The following surgical approaches were included in the analysis: Posterior, Hardinge/anterolateral, Other. The variables included in the final Cox model included: Gender, liner asymmetry, age, head composition, stem fixation method, head diameter, indication for implantation and surgical approach. An additional analysis of the 3 most commonly used polyethylene liners with both a flat and asymmetric version was performed.

In the fully adjusted Cox model, the use of a flat liner was associated with increased risk of revision for instability (HR: 1.79, 95%CI: 1.52–2.10) and increased risk of revision for all reasons (HR 1.195, 95%CI: 1.104 – 1.293) when compared to THAs utilising flat liners. This finding was upheld in the product specific analysis.

When utilising flat liners, the Hardinge/anterolateral approach was associated with a reduced risk of revision for instability compared to the posterior approach (HR 0.56, 95%CI: 0.446 to 0.706). When an asymmetric liner was used, there was no significant difference in the risk of revision for instability between the Hardinge/anterolateral approach and the posterior approach (HR 0.838, 95%CI: 0.633 – 1.110).

The use of polyethylene-based bearings gives the surgeon the option to use asymmetric liners. The reduced risk of revision in THAs with asymmetric liners was seen in the analysis of the complete dataset and in the product specific analysis. Our results demonstrate that the posterior approach, when used with asymmetric XLPE liners, is not associated with a higher risk of revision for instability as historical data suggested.

Computer aided Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) surgery is known to improve implantation precision, but clinical trials have failed to demonstrate an improvement in survivorship or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Our aim was to compare the risk of revision, PROMs and satisfaction rates between computer guided and THA implanted without computer guidance.

We used the National Joint Registry dataset and linked PROMs data. Our sample included THAs implanted for osteoarthritis using cementless acetabular components from a single manufacturer (cementless and hybrid). An additional analysis was performed limiting the sample size to THAs using cementless stems (fully cementless). The primary endpoint was revision (of any component) for any reason. Kaplan Meier survivorship analysis and an adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards model were used.

41683 non computer guided, and 871 (2%) computer guided cases were included in our cementless and hybrid analysis. 943 revisions were recorded in the non-guided and 7 in the computer guided group (adjusted Log-rank test, p= 0.028). Cumulative revision rate at 10 years was 3.88% (95%CI: 3.59 – 4.18) and 1.06% (95%CI: 0.45 – 2.76) respectively. Cox Proportional Hazards adjusted HR: 0.45 (95%CI: 0.21 – 0.96, p=0.038). In the fully cementless group, cumulative revision rate at 10 years was 3.99% (95%CI: 3.62 – 4.38) and 1.20% (95%CI: 0.52 – 3.12) respectively. Cox Proportional Hazards adjusted HR: 0.47 (95%CI: 0.22 – 1.01, p=0.053). There was no statistically significant difference in the 6-month Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS and success rates. Patient Satisfaction (single-item satisfaction outcome measure) was improved in the computer guided group but this finding was limited by a reduced number of responses.

In this single manufacturer acetabular component analysis, the use of computer guided surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the early risk of revision. Causality cannot be inferred in view of the observational nature of the study, and further database and prospective studies are recommended to validate these findings.

The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to identify the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection.

This study follows up on a smaller study in the same unit in 2019 where an initial 152 cases were scrutinised. In this follow up study we examined 1,361 consecutive patients over a 16-year period whom had undergone revision hip replacement in a tertiary orthopaedic centre for any reason excluding primary bone tumour or malignant metastasis. All patients had tissue sampling for histopathological analysis performed by consultant histopathologists with a specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. The presence of bacteria in greater than 50% of samples sent for microbiological analysis in each patient was used as the gold standard diagnostic comparator for infection. This was then compared with the histology report for each patient.

After excluding 219 patients with incomplete data and 1 sample rejection, 1,141 cases were examined. Microbiology confirmed infection in 132 cases (prevalence of infection 11.04%) and histopathology analysis suggested infection in 171 cases. Only 64 cases with confirmed infection in more than 50% of microbiology samples had concurrent diagnosis of infection on histological analysis (5.60% of total; PPV 51.20%). Furthermore, microbiology analysis confirmed infection in 62 cases where histological analysis failed to identify infection (5.43% of total; False negative rate 49.21%). Overall, histopathology analysis was seen to have a good specificity of 93.99% but poor sensitivity of 50.79%.

We believe that this is the largest series in the literature and is somewhat unique in that all histology analysis was performed by consultant histopathologists with specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. Based on the costs incurred by this additional investigation our experience does not support routine sampling for histological analysis in revision hip arthroplasty. This is a substantial paradigm shift from current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but would equate to a substantial cost saving.

Aim

To assess the effect of different polyethylene modifications on Total Hip Replacement survival.

Aim

To assess the effect of the bearing surface and head size on the survival of total hip replacements with modern bearing surface combinations.

The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to assess for the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection.

Our study examines 152 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip replacement in our centre for all reasons, excluding malignant neoplasm or metastasis. We reviewed the cases from a prospectively collated database, comparing microbiology results with histology results. Both microscopic and macroscopic analysis by specialist musculoskeletal histopathologist was included in our study.

We found 17 (11.2%) patients had cultured bacteria from intra-operative samples. Eight patients (5.3%) had histological findings interpreted as infection. Only one patient who had macroscopic and microscopic histology findings suggestive of infection also had culture results that identified a pathogen. Furthermore, the macroscopic analyses by the histopathologist suggested infection in nine patients. Only one patient with positive culture in greater than 2 samples had histological features of infection.

Of the 4 patients who were found to have 3 or more samples where an organism was identified only one had histological features of infection. This represents 25% sensitivity when using histology to analyse samples for infection. Of the 8 patients who had both macroscopic and microscopic features of infection only 1 patients cultured bacteria in more than 3 samples (PPV 12.5%).

Our experience does not support the routine sampling for histology in revision hip replacement. We suggest it is only beneficial in cases where infection is suspected or where a multi-procedure, staged revision is performed and the surgeon is planning return to theatre for the final stage. This is a substantial paradigm shift from the current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but will equate to a substantial cost saving.

Polymethylmethacetate (PMMA) is a bone cement used in over 725,000 primary hip arthroplasties in 2018. Cement integrity is affected by external factors, including temperature, mixing technique and moisture uptake, which can influence cement microstructure. Changes in the cement microstructure may ultimately threaten the survivorship of the implant.

The introduction of enhanced recovery and various local anaesthetic infiltration techniques have been adopted in an attempt to facilitate early mobilisation and reduce length of stay. Our study aims to investigate if the mechanical properties of PMMA are altered with exposure to Ropivacaine LA.

Cements were cured in three separate states (air, serum and serum with LA) and the mechanical properties tested at 24 hours and 28 days. Using Refobacin bone cement provided by ZimmerBIOMET, cylindrical molds (12×6mm) were constructed with a split-mold. The LA used was 2mg/ml Ropivacaine hydrochloride solution. Using pilot data, this study was powered to 80% and a sample size of 10 per group (n=60) was calculated.

Cement samples were subjected to compressive loading using a universal testing apparatus (Zwick/Roell). Yield-strength and modulus values were extracted from the respective stress versus strain curves. Significant differences were determined by one-way anova for each time point, and Bonferroni post-hoc testing to determine significance between actual groups.

At 24-hours there were no significant differences in strength or modulus between groups. At 28-day strength and modulus increased in all groups. Compared to the air group, both serum and LA groups show a significant decrease in compressive strength. The modulus for the LA group is significantly less stiff compared to the air group.

The results suggest that the initial exposure to LA has a significant impact on the physical properties of the PMMA. We propose increased awareness of the potential effects this may have on the longevity and survivorship of cemented implants.