Increasing femoral offset in total hip replacement (THR) has several benefits including improved hip abductor strength and enhanced range of motion. Biomechanical studies have suggested that this may negatively impact on stem stability. However, it is unclear whether this has a clinical impact. Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), the aim of this study was to determine the impact of stem offset and stem size for the three most common cementless THR prostheses revised for aseptic loosening.

The study period was September 1999 to December 2020. The study population included all primary procedures for osteoarthritis with a cementless THR using the Corail, Quadra-H and Polarstem. Procedures were divided into small and large stem sizes and by standard and high stem offset for each stem system. Hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare revision for aseptic loosening for offset and stem size for each of the three femoral stems.

There were 55,194 Corail stems, 13,642 Quadra-H stem, and 13,736 Polarstem prostheses included in this study. For the Corail stem, offset had an impact only when small stems were used (sizes 8-11). Revision for aseptic loosening was increased for the high offset stem (HR=1.90;95% CI 1.53–2.37;p<0.001).

There was also a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening for high offset small size Quadra-H stems (sizes 0-3). Similar to the Corail stem, offset did not impact on the revision risk for larger stems (Corail sizes 12-20, Quadra-H sizes 4-7). The Polarstem did not show any difference in aseptic loosening revision risk when high and standard offset stems were compared, and this was irrespective of stem size.

High offset may be associated with increased revision for aseptic loosening, but this is both stem size and prosthesis specific.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). Computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show evidence-supported survivorship advantages and are used widely. The aim of this study was to determine the revision outcome of hip commercially available navigation technologies.

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from January 2016 to December 2020 included all primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA). Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation were identified and compared to procedures inserted using ‘other’ computer navigation systems and to all non-navigated procedures. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was compared between the three groups using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and gender. A prosthesis specific analysis was also performed.

There were 1911 procedures that used the Intellijoint® system, 4081 used ‘other’ computer navigation, and 160,661 were non-navigated. The all-cause 2-year CPR rate for the Intellijoint HIP® system was 1.8% (95% CI 1.2, 2.6), compared to 2.2% (95% CI 1.8, 2.8) for other navigated and 2.2% (95% CI 2.1, 2.3) for non-navigated cases. A prosthesis specific analysis identified the Paragon/Acetabular Shell THAs combined with the Intellijoint HIP® system as having a higher (3.4%) rate of revision than non-navigated THAs (HR = 2.00 (1.01, 4.00), p=0.048).

When this outlier combination was excluded, the Intellijoint® system group demonstrated a two-year CPR of 1.3%. There was no statistical difference in the CPR between the three groups before or after excluding Paragon/Acetabular Shell system.

The preliminary data presented demonstrate no statistical difference in all cause revision rates when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with ‘other’ navigation systems and ‘non-navigated’ approaches for primary THAs performed for OA. The current sample size remains too small to permit meaningful subgroup statistical comparisons.