Purpose of the study: Correct implant position is one of the factors of long-term success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Acetabular architectural defects caused by trauma can create difficult situations leading to potential complications and poor outcome. The purpose of this study was to examine retrospectively the results of THA implanted after fracture of the acetabulum treated surgically. The objective was to analyse the specific features and search for factors favouring poor outcome.

Material and method: The series included 43 patients who had a THA implanted after treatment of an acetabular fracture. Mean age at trauma was 44.5 years (range 16–87). Five patients had a THA immediately, mean age 75 years (63–87). Thirty eight patients had osteosynthesis. According to the Letournel classification, the fracture was elementary in 12 cases and complex in 26. In ten patients, there was residual joint incongruence measuring more than 2 mm after osteosynthesis. The hips evolved to degenerated joint (n=34) and or necrosis (n=10).

Results: Mean time from acetabular osteosynthesis to THA was 94.6 months (range 3–444), excluding those patients whose THA was implanted at the time of the osteosynthesis. Arthroplasty required removal of the osteosynthesis material (n=11), insertion of a supportive ring (n=14) associated with a bone graft (n=13). The acetabular implant was considered to be well positioned according to the Pierchon criteria in 16 hips and was lateralised (n=21) and/or ascended (n=17) in the other hips. Inclination was 42.8 on average, range 10–18. The five-year survival was 80%.

Discussion: Arthroplasty after surgical treatment of an acetabular fracture is a difficult procedure. Complementary procedures are often necessary complicating the surgery and increasing the risk of perioperative complications, particularly infection. It is difficult to position the acetabular implant, increasing the risk of postoperative instability and early loosening. This study demonstrated the difficulties of implanting a THA in this context where the revision rate is significantly higher than in first-intention THA.

Introduction: Double mobility acetabular implant has a semicircular shape, it is covered with hydroxyapatite, the entire surface has a thickness of 3 mm and its centers of rotation are shifted.

The polyethylene employed is a high density one and it has some chanfers to avoid the cam effect.

Methods and materials: We present the results o an homogeneous series of 200 patients, operated between 2003 and 2007. Clinical and radiographic parameters were analyzed prospectively. The mean follow-up was done during 15 months. Clinical results were evaluated by the HHS at the out patients clinics: previous and post surgery.

Results: From the 200 patients operated (130 women-70 men / Mean age: 81 years old): 57,63% had a primary hip osteoarthritis; 5,77 % femoral necrosis ; 1,13 % rheumatoid arthritis; 16,95 % revision surgeries; 13,45% femoral neck fractures; 3,2% acetabular fractures y 1,5 % hip tumours.

HHS before surgery was 45, 83 points on average (from 12 to 79) y post surgery HHS was 80, 03 points (from 37 to 100), increasing the total score after the arthroplasty in a mean of 34, 17 points

Post surgery complications were as follow: 3 dislocations (1 after an enormous fall and 2 in patients with Alzheimer. In our series there are 50 patients diagnosed of dementia-Alzheimer); 1 per prosthetic fracture (revision surgery); 4 deep infections (2 acute: lavage+ antibiotherapy; 2 late ones: spacer + antibiotherapy +second time surgery); 2 Deep vein thromboses (Eco Doppler +) ; 10 urinary infections; 2 urinary retentions and 17 deaths.

Discussion: Double Mobility acetabular implant has shown good results in all the following indications: Revision surgery, hip osteoarthritis, femoral necrosis, Rheumatoid arthritis, femoral neck and acetabular fractures, hip tumours and as an implant for Computer Assisted Hip Surgery.

Conclusions: The complications founded while this acetabular implant is used appeared with the same percentage than others. The dislocation rate is lower than standard acetabular implants, especially in patients with neuromuscular or cognitive illnesses.

Those clinical results are hopeful and they could increase the number of actual indications (hip osteoarthritis in people over 70 years old, multiple illnesses associated, iterative dislocations…) for the double mobility implant on the future.

Purpose of the study: We conducted a retrospective study of 66 cases of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head by percutaneous drilling and autograft. This technique associated drilling with graft conductor effects and bone marrow inducers.

Material and Methods: Forty-six patients (41 male, 5 female) with non-traumatic osteonecrosis were included in this study. Mean age at surgery was 46 years (22–68). The 66 cases involved 32 right hips and 34 left hips (21 bilateral cases), six asymptomatic. Osteonecrosis was related to corticosteroid therapy (n=17), chronic ethylism (n=14), dyslipidaemia (n=7), barotraumatism (n=3), and renal transplantation (n=1). Four were found idiopathic. The preoperative ARCO classification was: 8 stage IIA, 21 stage IIB, 15 stage IIC, 7 stage IIIB, 13 stage IIIC and 2 stage IV. A minimally invasive surgical technique combined simple percutaneous drilling with a cancellous iliac bone graft harvested percutaneously homolaterally. Metaphyseal grafts were excluded from this analysis. Minimum postoperative follow-up was two years. The main outcome was rate of prosthesis conversion at two years.

Results: Considering all stages, 38 hips did not have a total prosthesis at two years (58% success) with a mean follow-up of 40 months (25–65). Twenty-eight hips had total prosthesis at two years (42% failure) with mean follow-up of 11 months (3–23). Mean survival was 29 months (3–65) with stabilisation of the initial lesions in 50% of hips. For the 44 stage II hips, success was achieved in 28 (64%). The success rate for stages IIA and IIB was 70% with mean follow-up of 29 months (19–65). For the 20 stage III hips success was achieved in nine (45%), with 30% for stage IIIB and 54% for stage IIIB and mean follow-up of 21 months (12–45). There were no cases of mechanical complications. One superficial skin infection cured favourably.

Discusssion and conclusion: Subchondral fracture (stage III) and necrosis volume > 30% appear to be unfavourable factors for outcome with this technique. There are other conservative treatments but all with technical difficulties or cost considerations despite sometimes questionable results. This technique is simple and very attractive. In one hand, it combines the advantages of the decompression-effect for the local vascularization with the bone inducer effect of the marrow auto-graft. And in the other, it is a non-invasive and conservative procedure which does not modify the morphology of the upper extremity of the femur and does not jeopardize a future total hip replacement. This is a reliable technique which merits confirmation with a larger series. The best indication remains stage IIA and IIB.

Introduction: The minimally invasive posterior approach has become a standard for total hip replacement (THR) but the interest for the other minimally invasive approaches has not waned in any way. We carried out a prospective and comparative study in order to analyse the interest of the anterolateral minimal invasive (ALMI) approach in comparaison to a minimally invasive posterior (MIP) approach for THR.

Material and method: We carried out a prospective and comparative study. A group of 35 primaries THR with large head using the ALMI approach, as described by Bertin and Röttinger, was compared to a group of 43 primaries THR performed through the MIP approach. The groups were not significantly different with respect to age, sex, bony mass index, ASA score, Charnley class, diagnoses and preoperative Womac index and PMA score. The preoperative Harris hip score was significantly lower in ALMI group. Early functional results have been evaluated thanks to Womac index and modified Harris hip score at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months. A p value < 0.05 has been considered as significant.

Results: The duration of surgical procedure was longer and the calculated blood loss more important in ALMI group (respectively p=0.045 and p=0.07). The preoperative complications were significantly more frequent in this group with 4 greater trochanter fractures, 3 false routes, 1 calcar fracture, and 2 metal back bascules versus one femoral fracture in MIP group. Other postoperative data (implant positioning, morphine consumption, length of hospital stay, type of discharge) were comparable. The early functional results at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months were also comparable. No other complication has been noted during the first 6 months in the two groups.

Discussion and Conclusion: The ALMI approach uses the intermuscular interval between the tensor fascia lata and the gluteus medius. It leaves intact the abductors muscles and the posterior capsule and short external rotators. The early clinical results are excellent despite of the initial complications related to the initial learning curve for this approach and the use of the large head with metal-on-metal bearing. The stability of the arthroplasty and the absence of muscular damage should permit to accelerate the postoperative rehabilitation in parallel with less preoperative complications after the initial learning curve.