We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

We report the use of a 15° face-changing cementless acetabular component in patients undergoing total hip replacement for osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip. The rationale behind its design and the surgical technique used for its implantation are described. It is distinctly different from a standard cementless hemispherical component as it is designed to position the bearing surface at the optimal angle of inclination, that is, < 45°, while maximising the cover of the component by host bone.

Loss of bone stock is a major problem in revision surgery of the hip. Impaction bone grafting of the femur is frequently used when dealing with deficient bone stock. In this retrospective study a consecutive series of 68 patients (69 hips) who had revision of a hip replacement with femoral impaction grafting were reviewed. Irradiated bone allograft was used in all hips. Radiological measurement of subsidence of the stem, incorporation of the graft and remodelling was carried out and showed incorporation of the graft in 26 of 69 hips (38%). However, there was no evidence of trabecular remodelling. Moderate subsidence of 5 mm to 10 mm occurred in ten hips (14.5%), and massive subsidence of > 10 mm in five (7.2%).

The results of this study are less favourable than those of others describing studies of revision of the femoral stem using impaction bone grafting. The absence of the characteristic changes of graft remodelling noted in other series raises the question as to whether irradiated bone graft may be a significant factor influencing the post-operative outcome.