Nanotechnology is the study, production and controlled manipulation of materials with a grain size < 100 nm. At this level, the laws of classical mechanics fall away and those of quantum mechanics take over, resulting in unique behaviour of matter in terms of melting point, conductivity and reactivity. Additionally, and likely more significant, as grain size decreases, the ratio of surface area to volume drastically increases, allowing for greater interaction between implants and the surrounding cellular environment. This favourable increase in surface area plays an important role in mesenchymal cell differentiation and ultimately bone–implant interactions.

Basic science and translational research have revealed important potential applications for nanotechnology in orthopaedic surgery, particularly with regard to improving the interaction between implants and host bone. Nanophase materials more closely match the architecture of native trabecular bone, thereby greatly improving the osseo-integration of orthopaedic implants. Nanophase-coated prostheses can also reduce bacterial adhesion more than conventionally surfaced prostheses. Nanophase selenium has shown great promise when used for tumour reconstructions, as has nanophase silver in the management of traumatic wounds. Nanophase silver may significantly improve healing of peripheral nerve injuries, and nanophase gold has powerful anti-inflammatory effects on tendon inflammation.

Considerable advances must be made in our understanding of the potential health risks of production, implantation and wear patterns of nanophase devices before they are approved for clinical use. Their potential, however, is considerable, and is likely to benefit us all in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 569–73.

Aims

The long-term functional outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed by trainees is not known. A multicentre retrospective study of 879 THAs was undertaken to investigate any differences in outcome between those performed by trainee surgeons and consultants.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term results of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients using either a conventional (CPE) or a highly cross-linked (HXLPE) polyethylene liner in terms of functional outcome, incidence of osteolysis, radiological wear and rate of revision.

We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine clinical outcomes following the revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify predictors of time to revision and outcomes following revision. Between 1998 and 2012 a total of 64 MoM hips (mean age at revision of 57.8 years; 46 (72%) female; 46 (72%) hip resurfacings and 18 (28%) total hip replacements) were revised for ARMD at one specialist centre. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.0 to 14.6) from revision for ARMD there were 13 hips (20.3%) with post-operative complications and eight (12.5%) requiring re-revision.

The Kaplan–Meier five-year survival rate for ARMD revision was 87.9% (95% confidence interval 78.9 to 98.0; 19 hips at risk). Excluding re-revisions, the median absolute Oxford hip score (OHS) following ARMD revision using the percentage method (0% best outcome and 100% worst outcome) was 18.8% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.8% to 48.3%), which is equivalent to 39/48 (IQR 24.8/48 to 44.3/48) when using the modified OHS. Histopathological response did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.334) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.879). Similarly, the presence or absence of a contralateral MoM hip bearing did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.066) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.178).

Patients revised to MoM bearings had higher rates of re-revision (five of 16 MoM hips re-revised; p = 0.046), but those not requiring re-revision had good functional results (median absolute OHS 14.6% or 41.0/48). Short-term morbidity following revision for ARMD was comparable with previous reports. Caution should be exercised when choosing bearing surfaces for ARMD revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1600–9.

A moderator and panel of five experts led an interactive session in discussing five challenging and interesting patient case presentations involving surgery of the hip. The hip pathologies reviewed included failed open reduction internal fixation of subcapital femoral neck fracture, bilateral hip disease, evaluation of pain after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, avascular necrosis, aseptic loosening secondary to osteolysis and polyethylene wear, and management of ceramic femoral head fracture.

This paper considers the increased risk of the development of lymphoma in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who undergo metal-on-metal arthroplasty.

The December 2013 Wrist & Hand Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Scapholunate instability; three-ligament tenodesis; Pronator quadratus; Proximal row carpectomy; FPL dysfunction after volar plate fixation; Locating the thenar branch of the median nerve; Metallosis CMCJ arthroplasties; and timing of flap reconstruction

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results.

A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions.

We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort.

Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91.

The June 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether metal-on-metal is really such a disaster; resurfacings with unexplained pain; large heads and high ion levels; hip arthroscopy for FAI; the inaccuracy of clinical tests for impingement; arthroscopic lengthening of iliopsoas; the OA hip; the injured hamstring – football’s most common injury; an algorithm for hip fracture surgery; and sparing piriformis at THR.

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip replacements (THR) have given rise to concern. Comparative studies of small-head MoM THRs over a longer follow-up period are lacking. Our objective was to compare the incidence of complications such as infection, dislocation, revision, adverse local tissue reactions, mortality and radiological and clinical outcomes in small-head (28 mm) MoM and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) THRs up to 12 years post-operatively.

A prospective cohort study included 3341 THRs in 2714 patients. The mean age was 69.1 years (range 24 to 98) and 1848 (55.3%) were performed in women, with a mean follow-up of 115 months (18 to 201). There were 883 MoM and 2458 CoP bearings. Crude incidence rates (cases/1000 person-years) were: infection 1.3 vs 0.8; dislocation 3.3 vs 3.1 and all-cause revision 4.3 vs 2.2, respectively. There was a significantly higher revision rate after ten years (adjusted hazard ratio 9.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 33.6) in the MoM group, and ten of 26 patients presented with an adverse local tissue reaction at revision. No differences in mortality, osteolysis or clinical outcome were seen.

In conclusion, we found similar results for small-head MoM and CoP bearings up to ten years post-operatively, but after ten years MoM THRs had a higher risk of all-cause revision. Furthermore, the presence of an adverse response to metal debris seen in the small-head MOM group at revision is a cause for concern.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:868–75.

A modular femoral head–neck junction has practical advantages in total hip replacement. Taper fretting and corrosion have so far been an infrequent cause of revision. The role of design and manufacturing variables continues to be debated. Over the past decade several changes in technology and clinical practice might result in an increase in clinically significant taper fretting and corrosion. Those factors include an increased usage of large diameter (36 mm) heads, reduced femoral neck and taper dimensions, greater variability in taper assembly with smaller incision surgery, and higher taper stresses due to increased patient weight and/or physical activity. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of taper assembly compared with design, manufacturing and other implant variables.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:3–6.

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery.

The aim of this study was to establish the natural course of unrevised asymptomatic pseudotumours after metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing during a six- to 12-month follow-up period. We used repeated metal artefact reduction sequence (MARS)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), serum metal ion analysis and clinical examination to study 14 unrevised hips (mean patient age 52.7 years, 46 to 68, 5 female, 7 male) with a pseudotumour and 23 hips (mean patient age 52.8 years, 38 to 69, 7 female, 16 male) without a pseudotumour. The mean post-operative time to the first MARS-MRI scan was 4.3 years (2.2 to 8.3), and mean time between the first and second MARS-MRI scan was eight months (6 to 12). At the second MRI scan, the grade of severity of the pseudotumour had not changed in 35 hips. One new pseudotumour (Anderson C2 score, moderate) was observed, and one pseudotumour was downgraded from C2 (moderate) to C1 (mild). In general, the characteristics of the pseudotumours hardly changed.

Repeated MARS-MRI scans within one year in patients with asymptomatic pseudotumours after MoM hip resurfacing showed little or no variation. In 23 patients without pseudotumour, one new asymptomatic pseudotumour was detected.

This is the first longitudinal study on the natural history of pseudotumours using MARS-MRI scans in hip resurfacing, and mirrors recent results for 28 mm diameter MoM total hip replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1626–31.

The August 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: are we getting it right first time?; tantalum augments in revision hip surgery; lower wear in dual mobility?; changing faces changes outcomes; synovial fluid aspiration in MOM hips; taper disease: the new epidemic of hip surgery; the super-obese and THR; and whether well fixed stems can remain in infected hips

The early failure and revision of bimodular primary total hip arthroplasty prostheses requires the identification of the risk factors for material loss and wear at the taper junctions through taper wear analysis. Deviations in taper geometries between revised and pristine modular neck tapers were determined using high resolution tactile measurements. A new algorithm was developed and validated to allow the quantitative analysis of material loss, complementing the standard visual inspection currently used.

The algorithm was applied to a sample of 27 retrievals (in situ from 2.9 to 38.1 months) of the withdrawn Rejuvenate modular prosthesis. The mean wear volumes on the flat distal neck piece taper was 3.35 mm³ (0.55 to 7.57), mainly occurring in a characteristic pattern in areas with high mechanical loading. Wear volume tended to increase with time to revision (r² = 0.423, p = 0.001). Implant and patient specific data (offset, stem size, patient’s mass, age and body mass index) did not correlate with the amount of material loss observed (p >  0.078). Bilaterally revised implants showed higher amounts of combined total material loss and similar wear patterns on both sides. The consistent wear pattern found in this study has not been reported previously, suggesting that the device design and materials are associated with the failure of this prosthesis.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1350–7.

A 70-year-old man with an uncemented metal-on-polyethylene total hip prosthesis underwent revision arthroplasty 33 months later because of pain, swelling and recurrent dislocation. There appeared to be corrosion and metal release from the prosthetic head, resulting in pseudotumour formation and severe local soft-tissue destruction. The corrosion occurred at the junction between the titanium-molybdenum-zirconium-iron taper and the cobalt-chrome-molybdenum head, but the mechanism was unproven.

This study compared component wear rates and pre-revision blood metal ions levels in two groups of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: hip resurfacing and modular total hip replacement (THR).

There was no significant difference in the median rate of linear wear between the groups for both acetabular (p = 0.4633) and femoral (p = 0.0872) components. There was also no significant difference in the median linear wear rates when failed hip resurfacing and modular THR hips of the same type (ASR and Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR)) were compared.

Unlike other studies of well-functioning hips, there was no significant difference in pre-revision blood metal ion levels between hip resurfacing and modular THR.

Edge loading was common in both groups, but more common in the resurfacing group (67%) than in the modular group (57%). However, this was not significant (p = 0.3479). We attribute this difference to retention of the neck in resurfacing of the hip, leading to impingement-type edge loading. This was supported by visual evidence of impingement on the femur.

These findings show that failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and modular THRs have similar component wear rates and are both associated with raised pre-revision blood levels of metal ions.