We hypothesised that the removal of the subchondral bone plate (SCBP) for cemented acetabular component fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers advantages over retention by improving the cement-bone interface, without jeopardising implant stability. We have previously published two-year follow-up data of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), in which 50 patients with primary osteoarthritis were randomised to either retention or removal of the SCBP. The mean age of the retention group (n = 25, 13 males) was 70.0 years (. sd. 6.8). The mean age in the removal group (n = 25, 16 males) was 70.3 years (. sd. 7.9). Now we have followed up the patients at six (retention group, n = 21; removal group, n = 20) and ten years (retention group: n = 17, removal group: n = 18), administering clinical outcome questionnaires and radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and determining the presence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) on conventional radiographs. RSA demonstrated similar translation and rotation patterns up to six years. Between six and ten years, proximal acetabular component migration and changes of inclination were larger in the retention group, although the mean differences did not reach statistical significance. Differences in migration were driven by two patients in the SCBP retention group with extensive migration versus none in the SCBP removal group. The significant difference (p < 0.001) in the development of radiolucent lines in the retention group, previously observed at two years, increased even further during the course of follow-up (p < 0.001). While recognising SCBP removal is a more demanding technique, we conclude that, wherever possible, the SCBP should be removed to improve the cement–bone interface in order to maximise acetabular component stability and longevity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:35–44

Removal of well-fixed, cementless, acetabular components during revision arthroplasty remains a challenging problem. Further damage to host bone may limit options for reconstruction and compromise the long-term result of the revision operation. We report the results of 31 hips with well-fixed, cementless sockets which were removed using a new cup extraction system. In all hips the socket was removed without difficulty and with minimal further bone loss

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone.

We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.

Aims. This study reports mid-term outcomes after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) exclusively in a borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) population to provide a contrast to published outcomes for arthroscopic surgery of the hip in BHD. Methods. We identified 42 hips in 40 patients treated between January 2009 and January 2016 with BHD defined as a lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) of ≥ 18° but < 25°. A minimum five-year follow-up was available. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) including Tegner score, subjective hip value (SHV), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed. The following morphological parameters were evaluated: LCEA, acetabular index (AI), α angle, Tönnis staging, acetabular retroversion, femoral version, femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof index (FEAR), iliocapsularis to rectus femoris ratio (IC/RF), and labral and ligamentum teres (LT) pathology. Results. The mean follow-up was 96 months (67 to 139). The SHV, mHHS, WOMAC, and Tegner scores significantly improved (p < 0.001) at last follow-up. According to SHV and mHHS, there were three hips (7%) with poor results (SHV < 70), three (7%) with a fair score (70 to 79), eight (19%) with good results (80 to 89), and 28 (67%) who scored excellent (> 90) at the last follow-up. There were 11 subsequent operations: nine implant removals due to local irritation, one resection of postoperative heterotopic ossification, and one hip arthroscopy for intra-articular adhesions. No hips were converted to total hip arthroplasty at last follow-up. The presence of preoperative labral lesions or LT lesions did not influence any PROMs at last follow-up. From the three hips that had poor PROMs, two have developed severe osteoarthritis (> Tönnis II), presumably due to surgical overcorrection (postoperative AI < -10°). Conclusion. PAO is reliable in treating BHD with favourable mid-term outcomes. Concomitant LT and labral lesions did not negatively influence outcomes in our cohort. Technical accuracy with avoidance of overcorrection is essential in achieving successful outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):735–742

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the lifetime risk of revision surgery for patients undergoing Charnley cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA), with 40-year follow up, using death as a competing risk. . Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 2000 cemented Charnley THAs, with 51 living hips available at 40 years. . Results. The cumulative risk of revision or removal for any reason was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12 to 15). Patients aged under 50 years at the time of surgery had a 35% (95% CI 28 to 42) risk of revision or removal for any reason (Hazard Ratio (HR) 3.6; 95% CI 2.5 to 5.2; p <  0.001), patients 50 to 59 years old had a 20% risk (95% CI 16 to 24) (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8; p < 0.0001), patients aged 60 to 69 years had a 9% risk (95% CI 7 to 11) (reference point), and patients ≥ 70 years old had a 5% risk (95% CI 4 to 7) (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5; p = 0.86) during their lifetime. Men had a higher risk of revision or removal for any reason (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.7; p < 0.001). . Conclusion. With almost all the patients in this series followed up till either death or revision, we have been able to develop a ‘rule of thumb’ for lifetime likelihood of revision or implant removal for the Charnley THA: one in three for patients < 50 years, one in five for patients 50 to 59 years, one in ten for patients 60 to 69 years, and one in 20 for patients ≥ 70 years. The results provide a benchmark for comparison of outcomes, for the newer designs of THA. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1436–40

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution.

When fracture of an extensively porous-coated femoral component occurs, its removal at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may require a femoral osteotomy and the use of a trephine. The remaining cortical bone after using the trephine may develop thermally induced necrosis. A retrospective review identified 11 fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral components requiring removal using a trephine with a minimum of two years of follow-up. . The mean time to failure was 4.6 years (1.7 to 9.1, standard deviation (. sd. ) 2.3). These were revised using a larger extensively porous coated component, fluted tapered modular component, a proximally coated modular component, or a proximal femoral replacement. The mean clinical follow-up after revision THA was 4.9 years (2 to 22, . sd. 3.1). The mean diameter of the femoral component increased from 12.7 mm (. sd. 1.9) to 16.2 mm (. sd. 3.4; p >  0.001). Two revision components had radiographic evidence of subsidence that remained radiographically stable at final follow-up. The most common post-operative complication was instability affecting six patients (54.5%) on at least one occasion. . A total of four patients (36.4%) required further revision: three for instability and one for fracture of the revision component. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean Harris hip score before implant fracture (82.4; . sd. 18.3) and after trephine removal and revision THA (81.2; . sd. 14.8, p = 0.918). . These findings suggest that removal of a fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral component using a trephine does not compromise subsequent fixation at revision THA and the patient’s pre-operative level of function can be restored. However, the loss of proximal bone stock before revision may be associated with a high rate of dislocation post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1192–6

Aims

Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.

Aims

The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported for monolithic tapered, fluted, titanium stems (TFTS), early results showed high rates of subsidence. Advances in stem design may mitigate these concerns. This study reports on the use of a current monolithic TFTS for a variety of indications. Methods. A multi-institutional retrospective study of all consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) patients who received the monolithic TFTS was conducted. Surgery was performed by eight fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons at four institutions. A total of 157 hips in 153 patients at a mean follow-up of 11.6 months (SD7.8) were included. Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 67.4 years (SD 13.3) and mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.9 kg/m. 2. (SD 6.5). Outcomes included intraoperative complications, one-year all-cause re-revisions, and subsidence at postoperative time intervals (two weeks, six weeks, six months, nine months, and one year). Results. There were eight intraoperative complications (4.9%), six of which were intraoperative fractures; none occurred during stem insertion. Six hips (3.7%) underwent re-revision within one year; only one procedure involved removal of the prosthesis due to infection. Mean total subsidence at latest follow-up was 1.64 mm (SD 2.47). Overall, 17 of 144 stems (11.8%) on which measurements could be performed had >5 mm of subsidence, and 3/144 (2.1%) had >10 mm of subsidence within one year. A univariate regression analysis found that additional subsidence after three months was minimal. A multivariate regression analysis found that subsidence was not significantly associated with periprosthetic fracture as an indication for surgery, the presence of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO), Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, stem length, or type of procedure performed (i.e. full revision vs conversion/primary). Conclusion. Advances in implant design, improved trials, a range of stem lengths and diameters, and high offset options mitigate concerns of early subsidence and dislocation with monolithic TFTS, making them a valuable option for femoral revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):191–197

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty has been used as a surgical treatment of coxarthrosis since 1997. We present 20-year results of 234 consecutive BHRs performed in our unit.

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

Aims

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is widely recognized as a demanding surgical procedure for acetabular reorientation. Reports about the learning curve have primarily focused on complication rates during the initial learning phase. Therefore, our aim was to assess the PAO learning curve from an analytical perspective by determining the number of PAOs required for the duration of surgery to plateau and the accuracy to improve.

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon’s consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years.