There is a paucity of data available for the use of Total Femoral Arthroplasty (TFA) for joint reconstruction in the non-oncological setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate TFA outcomes with minimum 5-year follow-up.

This was a retrospective database study of TFAs performed at a UK tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing TFA for non-oncological indications. We report demographics, indications for TFA, implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and indications for re-operation.

A total of 39 TFAs were performed in 38 patients between 2015–2018 (median age 68 years, IQR 17, range 46–86), with 5.3 years’ (IQR 1.2, 4.1–18.8) follow-up; 3 patients had died. The most common indication (30/39, 77%) for TFA was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or fracture-related infection (FRI); and 23/39 (59%) had a prior periprosthetic fracture (PPF). TFA was performed with dual-mobility or constrained cups in 31/39 (79%) patients. Within the cohort, 12 TFAs (31%) required subsequent revision surgery: infection (7 TFAs, 18%) and instability (5 TFAs, 13%) were the most common indications. 90% of patients were ambulatory post-TFA; 2 patients required disarticulation due to recurrent PJI. While 31/39 (79%) were infection free at last follow-up, the remainder required long-term suppressive antibiotics.

This is the largest series of TFA for non-oncological indications. Though TFA has inherent risks of instability and infection, most patients are ambulant after surgery. Patients should be counselled on the risk of life-long antibiotics, or disarticulation when TFA fails.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the stability of a new short femoral stem compared with a conventional femoral stem in patients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), in a prospective randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Background

Short bone-conserving femoral stem implants were developed to achieve more physiological, proximal bone loading than conventional femoral stems. Concerns have arisen, however, that improved loading may be offset by lower primary stability because of the reduced potential area for bony contact.

Objectives

A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic indications.

The management of proximal femoral bone loss is a significant challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. A possible solution is the use of a modular proximal femur endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the survivorship and functional outcome of megaprostheses used in tumour surgery has been well described, outcome of EPRs used in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year outcome following proximal femur EPR and determine factors that influence it.

This was a retrospective consecutive case series of all EPRs (n=80) performed for non-neoplastic indications, by 6 surgeons, in our tertiary referral centre, between 2005–2014. Patient demographics and relevant clinical details were determined from notes. The most common indications for the use of EPRs included infection (n=40), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=12) and failed osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures/complex trauma (n=11). Outcome measures included complication and re-operation rates, implant survival and assessment of functional outcome using the Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS).

The mean age at surgery was 69 years and mean follow-up was 4 (0 – 11) years. The mean number of previous hip operations was 2.4 (range: 0 – 17). Twenty-five patients sustained a complication (31%), the most common being infection (n=9) and dislocation (n=4). By follow-up, further surgery was required in 18 (22%) hips, 9 of which were EPR revisions. 5-yr implant survivorship was 87% (95%CI: 76 – 98%). Mean OHS was 28 (range: 4 – 48). Inferior survival and outcome were seen in EPRs performed for the treatment of infection. Infection eradication was achieved in 34/41 with the index EPR procedure and in 40/41 hips by follow-up.

Limb salvage was achieved in all cases and acceptable complication- and re-operation rates were seen. EPRs for periprosthetic fractures and failed osteosynthesis had best outcome. We recommend the continued use of proximal femur EPR in complex revision surgery.

Pseudotumours are a rare complication of hip resurfacing. They are thought to be a response to metal debris which may be caused by edge loading due to poor orientation of the acetabular component. Our aim was to determine the optimal acetabular orientation to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation.

We matched 31 hip resurfacings revised for pseudotumour formation with 58 controls who had a satisfactory outcome from this procedure. The radiographic inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular component were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis using Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse software. The mean inclination angle (47°, 10° to 81°) and anteversion angle (14°, 4° to 34°) of the pseudotumour cases were the same (p = 0.8, p = 0.2) as the controls, 46° (29° to 60°) and 16° (4° to 30°) respectively, but the variation was greater. Assuming an accuracy of implantation of ± 10° about a target position, the optimal radiographic position was found to be approximately 45° of inclination and 20° of anteversion. The incidence of pseudotumours inside the zone was four times lower (p = 0.007) than outside the zone.

In order to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation we recommend that surgeons implant the acetabular component at an inclination of 45° (± 10) and anteversion of 20° (± 10) on post-operative radiographs. Because of differences between the radiographic and the operative angles, this may be best achieved by aiming for an inclination of 40° and an anteversion of 25°.

We report 17 patients (20 hips) in whom metal-on-metal resurfacing had been performed and who presented with various symptoms and a soft-tissue mass which we termed a pseudotumour. Each patient underwent plain radiography and in some, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were also performed. In addition, histological examination of available samples was undertaken.

All the patients were women and their presentation was variable. The most common symptom was discomfort in the region of the hip. Other symptoms included spontaneous dislocation, nerve palsy, a noticeable mass or a rash. The common histological features were extensive necrosis and lymphocytic infiltration. To date, 13 of the 20 hips have required revision to a conventional hip replacement. Two are awaiting revision.

We estimate that approximately 1% of patients who have a metal-on-metal resurfacing develop a pseudotumour within five years. The cause is unknown and is probably multifactorial. There may be a toxic reaction to an excess of particulate metal wear debris or a hypersensitivity reaction to a normal amount of metal debris. We are concerned that with time the incidence of these pseudotumours may increase. Further investigation is required to define their cause.