Aims

The aims of this study were to assess the exposure and preservation of the abductor mechanism during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the posterior approach, and to evaluate gluteus maximus transfer to restore abductor function of chronically avulsed gluteus medius and minimus.

This study reports the clinical outcome of reconstruction of deficient abductor muscles following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), using a fresh–frozen allograft of the extensor mechanism of the knee. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 11 consecutive patients with a severe limp because of abductor deficiency which was confirmed on MRI scans. The mean age of the patients (three men and eight women) was 66.7 years (52 to 84), with a mean follow-up of 33 months (24 to 41). . Following surgery, two patients had no limp, seven had a mild limp, and two had a persistent severe limp (p = 0.004). The mean power of the abductors improved on the Medical Research Council scale from 2.15 to 3.8 (p < 0.001). Pre-operatively, all patients required a stick or walking frame; post-operatively, four patients were able to walk without an aid. Overall, nine patients had severe or moderate pain pre-operatively; ten patients had no or mild pain post-operatively. . At final review, the Harris hip score was good in five patients, fair in two and poor in four. . We conclude that using an extensor mechanism allograft is relatively effective in the treatment of chronic abductor deficiency of the hip after THA when techniques such as local tissue transfer are not possible. . Longer-term follow-up is necessary before the technique can be broadly applied. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1050–5

Based on the first implementation of mixing antibiotics into bone cement in the 1970s, the Endo-Klinik has used one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in over 85% of cases. Looking carefully at current literature and guidelines for PJI treatment, there is no clear evidence that a two stage procedure has a higher success rate than a one-stage approach. A cemented one-stage exchange potentially offers certain advantages, mainly based on the need for only one operative procedure, reduced antibiotics and hospitalisation time. In order to fulfill a one-stage approach, there are obligatory pre-, peri- and post-operative details that need to be meticulously respected, and are described in detail. Essential pre-operative diagnostic testing is based on the joint aspiration with an exact identification of any bacteria. The presence of a positive bacterial culture and respective antibiogram are essential, to specify the antibiotics to be loaded to the bone cement, which allows a high local antibiotic elution directly at the surgical side. A specific antibiotic treatment plan is generated by a microbiologist. The surgical success relies on the complete removal of all pre-existing hardware, including cement and restrictors and an aggressive and complete debridement of any infected soft tissues and bone material. Post-operative systemic antibiotic administration is usually completed after only ten to 14 days.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:77–83.

This conversation represents an attempt by several arthroplasty surgeons to critique several abstracts presented over the last year as well as to use them as a jumping off point for trying to figure out where they fit in into our current understanding of multiple issues in modern hip and knee arthroplasty.