Aims
Patients and Methods
We report on gender-specific reference intervals
of the alpha angle and its association with other qualitative cam-type
findings in femoroacetabular impingement at the hip, according to
a population-based cohort of 2038 19-year-olds, 1186 of which were
women (58%). The alpha angle was measured on standardised frog-leg
lateral and anteroposterior (AP) views using digital measurement
software, and qualitative cam-type findings were assessed subjectively
on both views by independent observers. In all, 2005 participants
(837 men, 1168 women, mean age 18.6 years (17.2 to 20.1) were included
in the analysis. For the frog-leg view, the mean alpha angle (right
hip) was 47° (26 to 79) in men and 42° (29 to 76) in women, with
97.5 percentiles of 68° and 56°, respectively. For the AP view,
the mean values were 62° (40 to 105) and 52° (36 to 103) for men
and women, respectively, with 97.5 percentiles of 93° and 94°. Associations
between higher alpha angles and all qualitative cam-type findings
were seen for both genders on both views. The reference intervals
presented for the alpha angle in this cross-sectional study are
wide, especially for the AP view, with higher mean values for men
than women on both views. Cite this article:
The reported prevalence of an asymptomatic slip
of the contralateral hip in patients operated on for unilateral slipped
capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is as high as 40%. Based on a population-based
cohort of 2072 healthy adolescents (58% women) we report on radiological
and clinical findings suggestive of a possible previous SCFE. Common
threshold values for Southwick’s lateral head–shaft angle (≥ 13°)
and Murray’s tilt index (≥ 1.35) were used. New reference intervals
for these measurements at skeletal maturity are also presented. At follow-up the mean age of the patients was 18.6 years (17.2
to 20.1). All answered two questionnaires, had a clinical examination
and two hip radiographs. There was an association between a high head–shaft angle and
clinical findings associated with SCFE, such as reduced internal
rotation and increased external rotation. Also, 6.6% of the cohort
had Southwick’s lateral head–shaft angle ≥ 13°, suggestive of a
possible slip. Murray’s tilt index ≥ 1.35 was demonstrated in 13.1%
of the cohort, predominantly in men, in whom this finding was associated
with other radiological findings such as pistol-grip deformity or
focal prominence of the femoral neck, but no clinical findings suggestive
of SCFE. This study indicates that 6.6% of young adults have radiological
findings consistent with a prior SCFE, which seems to be more common
than previously reported. Cite this article:
We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.
We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied.
We have compared the survival of two hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated cups, 1208 Atoll hemispheric and 2641 Tropic threaded, with cemented Charnley all-polyethylene cups (16 021) using the Cox regression model. The Tropic cup used in combination with an alumina ceramic femoral head, had good results, similar to those of the Charnley cup. When used in combination with a stainless-steel head, however, the risk of revision beyond four years was increased 3.4 times for the Tropic cup compared with the Charnley cup (p <
0.001). Over the same period, the Atoll cup had an increased risk of revision of 3.8 times when used with the alumina heads (p <
0.001) and an increased risk of 6.1 times when used with stainless-steel heads (p <
0.001). Revision because of wear and osteolysis was more common with both types of HA-coated cup than with the Charnley cup. The rate of revision of the Atoll cup because of aseptic loosening was also increased. We found that HA-coated cups did not perform better than the Charnley cup.
Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we have the assessed survival of 17 323 primary Charnley hip prostheses in patients with osteoarthritis based upon the type of cement used for the fixation of the implant. Overall, 9.2% had been revised after follow-up for ten years; 71% of the failures involved aseptic loosening of the femoral component. We observed significantly increased rates of failure for prostheses inserted with CMW1 and CMW3 cements. Using implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos cement as the reference, the adjusted Cox regression failure rate ratios were 1.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.4) for implants cemented with plain Palacos, 1.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6) for Simplex, 2.1 (95% 1.5 to 2.9) for gentamicin-containing CMW1, 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.4) for plain CMW1 and 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9) for implants fixed with CMW3 cement. The adjusted failure rate at ten years varied from 5.9% for implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos to 17% for those fixed with CMW3.
