Objectives

T-cells are considered to play an important role in the inflammatory response causing arthroplasty failure. The study objectives were to investigate the composition and distribution of CD4+ T-cell phenotypes in the peripheral blood (PB) and synovial fluid (SF) of patients undergoing revision surgery for failed metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) hip arthroplasties, and in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty.

Aims

The aim of this study was to establish what happens to patients in the long term after endoprosthetic replacement for a primary malignant tumour of bone.

Aims

The goals of this study were to define the risk factors, characteristics, and chronology of fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

Worldwide rates of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are rising due to increased longevity of the population and the burden of osteoarthritis.

Revision TKA is a technically demanding procedure generating outcomes which are reported to be inferior to those of primary knee arthroplasty, and with a higher risk of complication. Overall, the rate of revision after primary arthroplasty is low, but the number of patients currently living with a TKA suggests a large potential revision healthcare burden.

Many patients are now outliving their prosthesis, and consideration must be given to how we are to provide the necessary capacity to meet the rising demand for revision surgery and how to maximise patient outcomes.

The purpose of this review was to examine the epidemiology of, and risk factors for, revision knee arthroplasty, and to discuss factors that may enhance patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:723–8.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee.

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR).

UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal.

The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11.

We report a 12- to 15-year implant survival assessment of a prospective single-surgeon series of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). The earliest 1000 consecutive BHRs including 288 women (335 hips) and 598 men (665 hips) of all ages and diagnoses with no exclusions were prospectively followed-up with postal questionnaires, of whom the first 402 BHRs (350 patients) also had clinical and radiological review.

Mean follow-up was 13.7 years (12.3 to 15.3). In total, 59 patients (68 hips) died 0.7 to 12.6 years following surgery from unrelated causes. There were 38 revisions, 0.1 to 13.9 years (median 8.7) following operation, including 17 femoral failures (1.7%) and seven each of infections, soft-tissue reactions and other causes. With revision for any reason as the end-point Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed 97.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9 to 97.9) and 95.8% (95% CI 95.1 to 96.5) survival at ten and 15 years, respectively. Radiological assessment showed 11 (3.5%) femoral and 13 (4.1%) acetabular radiolucencies which were not deemed failures and one radiological femoral failure (0.3%).

Our study shows that the performance of the BHR continues to be good at 12- to 15-year follow-up. Men have better implant survival (98.0%; 95% CI 97.4 to 98.6) at 15 years than women (91.5%; 95% CI 89.8 to 93.2), and women < 60 years (90.5%; 95% CI 88.3 to 92.7) fare worse than others. Hip dysplasia and osteonecrosis are risk factors for failure. Patients under 50 years with osteoarthritis fare best (99.4%; 95% CI 98.8 to 100 survival at 15 years), with no failures in men in this group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1298–1306.

We report the long-term survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients aged < 50 years at operation, and explore the factors affecting survival. Between 1997 and 2006, a total of 447 BHRs were implanted in 393 patients (mean age 41.5 years (14.9 to 49.9)) by one designing surgeon. The mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5.2 to 14.7), with no loss to follow-up. In all, 16 hips (3.6%) in 15 patients were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.7 to 98.3) at ten years and 94.1% (95% CI 84.9 to 97.3) at 14 years. Using aseptic revision as the endpoint, the survival for men with primary osteoarthritis (n = 195) was 100% (95% CI 100 to 100) at both ten years and 14 years, and in women with primary osteoarthritis (n = 109) it was 96.1% (95% CI 90.1 to 99.9) at ten years and 91.2% (95% CI 68.6 to 98.7) at 14 years. Female gender (p = 0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p = 0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. The median Oxford hip score (OHS, modified as a percentage with 100% indicating worst outcome) at last follow-up was 4.2% (46 of 48; interquartile range (IQR) 0% to 24%) and the median University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 6.0 (IQR 5 to 8). Men had significantly better OHS (p = 0.02) and UCLA scores (p = 0.01) than women. The BHR provides excellent survival and functional results in men into the second decade, with good results achieved in appropriately selected women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1172–7.

We evaluated the outcome of 41 consecutive Charnley low-friction arthroplasties (LFAs) performed by a single surgeon in 28 patients aged ≤ 35 years at operation between 23 and 36 years previously. There were 20 women and eight men with a mean age of 32 years (23 to 35) at surgery. Two patients (three hips) were lost to follow-up at 12 and 17 years post-operatively, respectively, and one patient (one hip) died at 13 years post-operatively. These patients were excluded from the final evaluation. The survival rate of the acetabular components was 92.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 88.7 to 96.7) at ten years, 67.1% (95% CI 59.75 to 74.45) at 20 years and 53.2% (95% CI 45.3 to 61.1) at 25 years. For the femoral component the survival was 95.1% (95% CI 91.8 to 98.5) at ten years, 77.1% (95% CI 73.9 to 80.3) at 20 years and 68.2% (95% CI 60.7 to 75.8) at 25 years. The results indicate that the Charnley LFA remains a reasonable choice in the treatment of young patients and can serve for comparison with newer techniques and implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1052–6.

A total of 219 hips in 192 patients aged between 18 and 65 years were randomised to 28-mm metal-on-metal uncemented total hip replacements (THRs, 107 hips) or hybrid hip resurfacing (HR, 112 hips). At a mean follow-up of eight years (6.6 to 9.3) there was no significant difference between the THR and HR groups regarding rate of revision (4.0% (4 of 99) vs 5.8% (6 of 104), p = 0.569) or re-operation rates without revision (5.1% (5 of 99) vs 2.9% (3 of 104), p = 0.428). In the THR group one recurrent dislocation, two late deep infections and one peri-prosthetic fracture required revision, whereas in the HR group five patients underwent revision for femoral head loosening and one for adverse reaction to metal debris. The mean University of California, Los Angeles activity scores were significantly higher in HR (7.5 (sd 1.7) vs 6.9 (sd 1.7), p = 0.035), but similar mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were obtained (5.8 (sd 9.5) in HR vs 5.1 (sd 8.9) in THR, p = 0.615) at the last follow-up. Osteolysis was found in 30 of 81 THR patients (37.4%), mostly in the proximal femur, compared with two of 83 HR patients (2.4%) (p < 0.001). At five years the mean metal ion levels were < 2.5 μg/l for cobalt and chromium in both groups; only titanium was significantly higher in the HR group (p = 0.001). Although revision rates and functional scores were similar in both groups at mid-term, long-term survival analysis is necessary to determine whether one procedure is more advantageous than the other.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1464–73.

Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28 mm) compared with 28 mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28 mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a ‘plus’ offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001).

In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.

Bone loss in the proximal tibia and distal femur is frequently encountered in revision knee replacement surgery. The various options for dealing with this depend on the extent of any bone loss. We present our results with the use of cementless metaphyseal metal sleeves in 103 patients (104 knees) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 65). At final follow-up, sleeves in 102 knees had good osseointegration. Two tibial sleeves were revised for loosening, possibly due to infection.

The average pre-operative Oxford Knee Score was 23 (11 to 36) and this improved to 32 (15 to 46) post-operatively. These early results encourage us to continue with the technique and monitor the outcomes in the long term.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1640–4.

United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines recommend the use of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in cognitively intact patients, who were independently mobile prior to the injury. This study aimed to analyse the risk factors associated with revision of the implant and mortality following THR, and to quantify risk. National Joint Registry data recording a THR performed for acute fracture of the femoral neck between 2003 and 2010 were analysed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the extent to which risk of revision was related to specific covariates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse factors affecting peri-operative mortality (< 90 days). A total of 4323 procedures were studied. There were 80 patients who had undergone revision surgery at the time of censoring (five-year revision rate 3.25%, 95% confidence interval 2.44 to 4.07) and 137 patients (3.2%) patients died within 90 days. After adjusting for patient and surgeon characteristics, an increased risk of revision was associated with the use of cementless prostheses compared with cemented (hazard ratio (HR) 1.33, p = 0.021). Revision was independent of bearing surface and head size. The risk of mortality within 90 days was significantly increased with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (grade 3: odds ratio (OR) 4.04, p < 0.001; grade 4/5: OR 20.26, p < 0.001; both compared with grades 1/2) and older age (≥ 75 years: OR 1.65, p = 0.025), but reduced over the study period (9% relative risk reduction per year).

THR is a good option in patients aged < 75 years and with ASA 1/2. Cementation of the femoral component does not adversely affect peri-operative mortality but improves survival of the implant in the mid-term when compared with cementless femoral components. There are no benefits of using head sizes > 28 mm or bearings other than metal-on-polyethylene. More research is required to determine the benefits of THR over hemiarthroplasty in older patients and those with ASA grades > 2.

Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma.

The April 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at osteoporotic hip fractures, retrotrochanteric pain, fibrin adhesive and reattachment of articular cartilage, autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells and avascular necrosis, bearing surfaces, stability after THR, digital templating, pelvic tilt after THR, custom-made sockets for DDH, and dogs and THR

In this retrospective study we evaluated the proficiency of shelf autograft in the restoration of bone stock as part of primary total hip replacement (THR) for hip dysplasia, and in the results of revision arthroplasty after failure of the primary arthroplasty. Of 146 dysplastic hips treated by THR and a shelf graft, 43 were revised at an average of 156 months, 34 of which were suitable for this study (seven hips were excluded because of insufficient bone-stock data and two hips were excluded because allograft was used in the primary THR). The acetabular bone stock of the hips was assessed during revision surgery. The mean implant–bone contact was 58% (50% to 70%) at primary THR and 78% (40% to 100%) at the time of the revision, which was a significant improvement (p < 0.001). At primary THR all hips had had a segmental acetabular defect > 30%, whereas only five (15%) had significant segmental bone defects requiring structural support at the time of revision. In 15 hips (44%) no bone graft or metal augments were used during revision.

A total of 30 hips were eligible for the survival study. At a mean follow-up of 103 months (27 to 228), two aseptic and two septic failures had occurred. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the revision procedures demonstrated a ten-year survival rate of 93.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78 to 107) with clinical or radiological failure as the endpoint. The mean Oxford hip score was 38.7 (26 to 46) for non-revised cases at final follow-up.

Our results indicate that the use of shelf autografts during THR for dysplastic hips restores bone stock, contributing to the favourable survival of the revision arthroplasty should the primary procedure fail.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:777–81.

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However, the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups, but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in the analyses. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates.

A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery. In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007), but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p < 0.001, Conserve: HR = 2.03, p < 0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001, Durom: HR = 1.67, p < 0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p < 0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48, p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p <  0.001). Once these influences had been removed, in 4873 male patients < 60 years old undergoing resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision was 1.59%.

In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year implant survival when the BHR was used.

The debate whether to use cemented or uncemented components in primary total hip replacement (THR) has not yet been considered with reference to the cost implications to the National Health Service.

We obtained the number of cemented and uncemented components implanted in 2009 from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The cost of each component was established. The initial financial saving if all were cemented was then calculated. Subsequently the five-year rates of revision for each type of component were reviewed and the predicted number of revisions at five years for the actual components used was compared with the predicted number of revisions for a cemented THR. This was then multiplied by the mean cost of revision surgery to provide an indication of the savings over the first five years if all primary THRs were cemented.

The saving at primary THR was calculated to be £10 million with an additional saving during the first five years of between £5 million and £8.5 million. The use of cemented components in routine primary THR in the NHS as a whole can be justified on a financial level but we recognise individual patient factors must be considered when deciding which components to use.

Migration of the acetabular component may give rise to oval-shaped bone defects in the acetabulum. The oblong implant is designed to fill these defects and achieve a stable cementless anchorage with no significant bone loss. We prospectively reviewed 133 oblong long oblique revision components at a mean follow-up of 9.74 years (0.6 to 14). All had been used in revisions for defects of type IIB to IIIB according to Paprosky. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 11 cases (8.3%) and deep infection in seven (5.3%). The probability of implant survival over a 12-year follow-up estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method gave a survival rate of 0.85% respectively 0.90% when deep infection was excluded as the endpoint.

Our study supports the use of these components in defects from IIB to IIIA. The main precondition for success is direct contact of more than half of the surface of the implant with the host acetabular bone.