The removal of well-fixed bone cement from the femoral canal during revision of a total hip replacement (THR) can be difficult and risks the loss of excessive bone stock and perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft. Retaining the cement mantle is attractive, yet the technique of cement-in-cement revision is not widely practised. We have used this procedure at our hospital since 1989. The stems were removed to gain a better exposure for acetabular revision, to alter version or leg length, or for component incompatibility.

We studied 136 hips in 134 patients and followed them up for a mean of eight years (5 to 15). A further revision was required in 35 hips (25.7%), for acetabular loosening in 26 (19.1%), sepsis in four, instability in three, femoral fracture in one and stem fracture in one. No femoral stem needed to be re-revised for aseptic loosening.

A cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem is a reliable technique in the medium term. It also reduces the risk of perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft.

Finite element analysis was used to examine the initial stability after hip resurfacing and the effect of the procedure on the contact mechanics at the articulating surfaces. Models were created with the components positioned anatomically and loaded physiologically through major muscle forces. Total micromovement of less than 10 μm was predicted for the press-fit acetabular components models, much below the 50 μm limit required to encourage osseointegration. Relatively high compressive acetabular and contact stresses were observed in these models. The press-fit procedure showed a moderate influence on the contact mechanics at the bearing surfaces, but produced marked deformation of the acetabular components. No edge contact was predicted for the acetabular components studied.

It is concluded that the frictional compressive stresses generated by the 1 mm to 2 mm interference-fit acetabular components, together with the minimal micromovement, would provide adequate stability for the implant, at least in the immediate post-operative situation.

The use of impaction bone grafting during revision arthroplasty of the hip in the presence of cortical defects has a high risk of post-operative fracture. Our laboratory study addressed the effect of extramedullary augmentation and length of femoral stem on the initial stability of the prosthesis and the risk of fracture.

Cortical defects in plastic femora were repaired using either surgical mesh without extramedullary augmentation, mesh with a strut graft or mesh with a plate. After bone impaction, standard or long-stem Exeter prostheses were inserted, which were tested by cyclical loading while measuring defect strain and migration of the stem.

Compared with standard stems without extramedullary augmentation, defect strains were 31% lower with longer stems, 43% lower with a plate and 50% lower with a strut graft. Combining extramedullary augmentation with a long stem showed little additional benefit (p = 0.67). The type of repair did not affect the initial stability. Our results support the use of impaction bone grafting and extramedullary augmentation of diaphyseal defects after mesh containment.

We have compared the biomechanical nature of the reconstruction of the hip in conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) and surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) in a randomised study involving 120 patients undergoing unilateral primary hip replacement. The contralateral hip was used as a control.

Post-operatively, the femoral offset was significantly increased with THA (mean 5.1 mm; −2.8 to 11.6) and decreased with SRA (mean −3.3 mm; −8.9 to 8.2). Femoral offset was restored within sd 4 mm in 14 (25%) of those with THA and in 28 (57%) of the patients receiving SRA (p < 0.001). In the THA group, the leg was lengthened by a mean of 2.6 mm (−6.04 to +12.9), whereas it was shortened by a mean of 1.9 mm (−7.1 to +2.05) in the SRA group, compared with the contralateral side. Leg-length inequality was restored within sd 4 mm in 42 (86%) of the SRA and 33 (60%) of the THA patients. The radiological parameters of acetabular reconstruction were similar in both groups.

Restoration of the normal proximal femoral anatomy was more precise with SRA. The enhanced stability afforded by the use of a large-diameter femoral head avoided over-lengthening of the limb or increased offset to improve soft-tissue tension as occurs sometimes in THA. In a subgroup of patients with significant pre-operative deformity, restoration of the normal hip anatomy with lower pre-operative femoral offset or significant shortening of the leg was still possible with SRA.