The SPAIRE technique (Saving Piriformis And Internus, Repair Externus) was first described in 2016 and an approach to the hip in the interval between the inferior gemellus and quadratus femoris can be used for both hemi- and total hip arthroplasty.

The HemiSPAIRE technique in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures has been compared with the standard lateral approach (advocated by NICE) in a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial into postoperative mobility and function. This NIHR funded study was recruited between November 2019 and April 2022 and the results are reported in this presentation.

The author has used the SPAIRE technique in 1026 routine primary total hip replacements since February 2016. The technique is described along with results from NJR data.

SPAIRE is most challenging in patients with small anatomy, reduced offset, with an external rotation deformity. Particularly in these, but in all cases, MAKO robotic assistance facilitates accurate implantation of prostheses and precise recreation of biomechanics. The MAKO robot has been used in all cases since 2018 and SPAIRE/MAKO is now the standard of care in the author's practice.

To evaluate whether robotic-assisted tendon-sparing posterior approaches (piriformis sparing and SPAIRE), improve patient outcomes in total hip arthroplasty compared with a robotic-assisted standard posterior approach, the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme has recently funded the HIPSTER trial (HIP Surgical Techniques to Enhance Rehabilitation). This is a single-centre, double-blinded, parallel three-arm, randomised, controlled, superiority trial; recruitment is in progress.

The greatest value of robotic assistance may be when it is used in combination with tendon-sparing surgery. Data is being gathered to evaluate whether the SPAIRE/MAKO technique confers benefits with regard the speed of post-op mobilisation as well as accelerated return to unrestricted function.

We report the outcome of 320 primary Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) with minimum 10-year follow-up (range 10–17 years, mean 12.6 years), performed by a single surgeon in Tauranga New Zealand, with the Exeter Contemporary Flanged all-polyethylene cup and Exeter femoral stem via a posterior approach. The aim of the study is to compare the results with the published results from the design centre and create a baseline cohort for further outcomes research in this centre.

All patients were prospectively followed at 6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, (and 15 years when available). Of 333 cases that matched the inclusion criteria, 13 procedures in 12 patents were excluded because of concomitant bone grafting and/or supplementary cage fixation, leaving 320 primary THA procedures in 280 patients, including 26 bilateral procedures in 13 patients.

Mean follow-up of the surviving cases was 12.6 (range 5.0-17.1) years. There were 12 revisions – 2 for fracture, 5 for instability, 1 for impingement pain and 4 for infection. There were no revisions for aseptic cup loosening. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 100% at 15.0 years (with minimum 40 cases remaining at risk). All-cause acetabular revision in 12 cases result in a Kaplan-Meier survival of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.5 to 98.3%).

Cemented THA with the Exeter Contemporary Flanged cup and the Exeter stem is a durable combination with results that can be replicated outside of the design centre. The Exeter Contemporary Flanged cup has excellent survivorship at 15 years when used with the Exeter stem. Cemented THA with well-proven components should be considered the benchmark against which newer designs and materials should be compared.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess medium-term improvements following total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to evaluate what effect different preoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) thresholds for treatment may have on patients’ access to THA and outcomes.

250 words max Long polished cemented femoral stems, such as the Exeter Hip Revision stem, are one option available to the revision hip arthroplasty surgeon. When proximal bone stock is compromised, distal fixation is often relied upon for stability of the femoral component. In such circumstances, torsional forces can result in debonding and loosening. This study compared the torsional behaviour of a cemented polished and featureless (plain) stem with cemented, polished stems featuring fins or flutes. Nine torsional tests were carried out on each of these three different stem designs. The finned stem construct was significantly stiffer than the fluted stem (mean 24.5 Nm/deg v 17.5 Nm/deg). The plain stem mean stiffness was less than the featured stems (13 Nm/deg), but wide variability lead to no statistically significant difference. The maximum torque of the finned (30.5 Nm) and fluted stems (29 Nm) was significantly higher than the plain stem (10.5 Nm); with no significance to the difference between the finned and fluted stems. Distal stem features may provide a more reliable and greater resistance to torque in polished, cemented revision hip stems. Finned stem features may also increase the stiffness of the construct. Consideration should thus be given to the incorporation of distal stem features in the design of revision hip stems.

Purpose: Removal of all foreign material is the normal practice at the time of revision arthroplasty for sepsis. However, removal of well-fixed bone cement is time consuming, can result in significant bone stock loss and increases the risk of femoral shaft perforation or fracture. We have performed two-stage revision for infection in a series of cases in which we have left oseeointegrated femoral cement at the first stage and we present the results of this technique.

Method: All patients underwent two-stage revision for infection. At the first stage the prostheses and acetabu-lar cement were removed but when the femoral cement mantle demonstrated good osseo-integration it was left in-situ. Following Girdlestone excision arthroplasty (GEA), patients received local antibiotics delivered by cement spacers, as well as systemic antibiotics. At the second stage the existing cement mantle was reamed, washed and dried and then a femoral component was cemented into the old mantle.

Results: Sixteen patients (M:F 5:11) had at least three years follow up (mean 80 months, range 43 to 91). One patient died of an unrelated cause at 53 months. Recurrence of infection was not suspected in this case. The mean time to first stage revision was 57 months (3 to 155). The mean time between first and second stages was 9 months (1 to 35). Organisms were identified in 14 (87.5%) cases (5 Staphylococcus Aureas, 4 Group B Streptococcus, 2 Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, 2 Enterococcus Faecalis, 1 Escheria Coli). At second stage, five (31.2%) acetabuli were uncemented and 11 (68.8%) were cemented. There were two complications; one patient dislocated 41 days post-operatively and a second patient required an acetabular revision at 44 days for sudden loss of fixation. No evidence of infection was found at re-revision. One patient has been revised for recurrent infection. Currently no patients are suspected of having a recurrence of infection.

Conclusion: Retention of a well-fixed femoral cement mantle during two-stage revision for infection and subsequent in-cement reconstruction is safe with a cure rate of 93%. Advantages include a shorter operating time, reduced loss of bone stock, improved component fixation and a technically easier second stage procedure.

Introduction: Recurrent dislocation can be a significant problem after total hip replacement. The use of a constrained tripolar liner is an option in the surgical treatment of dislocation or instability.

Methods: A retrospective review was carried out of patients identified from a prospective database. All patients had a constrained liner cemented onto a satisfactory pre-existing cement mantle, cemented into a reconstruction ring, or cemented into a well fixed cementless shell. The Osteonics Tripolar Liner was used in all cases; the outer aspect of the liner was prepared with a burr to create grooves and thus improve cement interlock. Data collected included demographics, reason for revision, re-revision rate, outcome and survival.

Results: There were 58 cases identified where a cemented constrained liner was inserted at revision hip surgery. Average age at time of surgery was 77years (range 40–94). There were 9 patients who died with less than 2 years follow-up; they were excluded, leaving a study group of 49 cases. No cases were lost to follow-up. Average duration of follow-up was 46months (range 24–76). There have been 4 infections, one of which required removal of prostheses and a 2-stage revision. There was one case of fall post-operatively and fracture of the contra-lateral femoral neck. There have been 4 implant failures requiring re-revision. All failures were due to disarticulation of the liner, 2 of which occurred in the same patient on separate occasions. There have been no revisions for loosening, and there have been no cases of failure at the bone-cement interface or at the cement-cement interface with the cement-in-cement technique. Overall survival of the cemented constrained liner was 90% at average 3.8years.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that cementing a constrained liner into the acetabulum is a viable option in revision hip surgery, particularly in the management of instability.

Impaction bone grafting with a cemented polished double-taper stem as a technique for revision of the femoral component was introduced in 1987 at our institution.

As at January 2000, 540 cases in 487 patients had been performed. All procedures have been studied prospectively and there are no patients lost to follow-up. We present the survivorship and outcome data for these patients.

Survivorship at 15 years is 90.6 percent [95 percent confidence interval: 88–93 percent]. Clinical scores show marked and sustained improvement.

There have been 45 failures [8.3 percent]. Technical error contributed to 13 of the 24 non-infective complications, but with improved technique plus the addition of long stemmed impaction grafting, there have been no technical errors since 1996.

Our results show that revision of the femoral component with impaction bone grafting is a reliable and durable technique with an acceptably low complication rate and with excellent survivorship at 15 years.

Retention of well fixed bone cement at the time of a revision THA is an attractive proposition, as its removal can be difficult, time consuming and may result in extensive bone stock loss or fracture. Previously reported poor results of cemented revision THA, however, have tended to discourage Surgeons from performing ‘cement in cement’ revisions, and this technique is not in widespread use.

Since 1989 in Exeter, we have performed a ‘cement within cement’ femoral stem revision on 354 occasions. An Exeter polished tapered stem has been cemented into the existing cement mantle on each occasion.

Clinical and radiological follow up of 5 years or longer is available for 156 cases. On no occasion has a cement in cement femoral stem had to be re-revised during this time for subsequent aseptic loosening.

This has encouraged the refinement of this technique, including the development of a new short stem designed specifically for cement within cement revisions. This stem is designed to fit into an existing well fixed cement mantle of most designs of cemented femoral components or hemi-arthroplasties, with only limited preparation of the proximal mantle required. The new stem greatly simplifies cement in cement revision and minimises the risk of distal shaft perforation or fracture, which is otherwise a potential hazard when reaming out distal cement to accommodate a longer prosthesis.

Acetabular component loosening and pelvic osteolysis continue to be a significant clinical challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. We present results of 339 cases of acetabular reconstruction with impacted allograft.

All patients who under went acetabular reconstruction with impaction allograft between July 1995 and July 1999 were included. Clinical and radiographic data was collected prospectively.

There were 339 patients identified. Average age was 71 years. The majority were first time revisions (201) but the group includes 2nd, 3rd and 4th revisions with 34 two-stage revisions and 44 primary arthroplasties.

There were multiple surgeons with 2/3 being consultants and 1/3 fellows. Pre and post-operative clinical assessment included Oxford and Harris hip scores, and a modified Charnley score for pain, function and range of movement.

Pre-operative radiographs were classified with the Paprosky classification. Follow up radiographs were assessed for graft thickness, component migration, graft reabsorption and lucent lines.

There were 10 grade I, 205 grade II, and 103 grade III defects with 3 pelvic discontinuities. Reconstruction methods included impaction only, rim and/or medial mesh, KP plate fixation and reinforcement cages.

Follow up average was 6.1 years (4.3 – 8.4) and no patient was lost. Infection was identified in 13 patients (5 recurrent 89% eradication and 8 new 2.6%). There were 6 nerve injuries, 2 remain unresolved and 13 patients dislocated (3.8%). There have been 46 deaths in the group with 3 being peri-operative.

There have been 18 re-operations for aseptic loosening. 7 KP plates fractured, 1 cage migrated and 10 rim meshes failed.

Factors associated with aseptic loosening include use of a large rim mesh particularly with an allograft thickness of > 2cm.

We conclude that impaction allografting is a reliable method for acetabular reconstruction. Careful consideration should be given when allograft thickness will be > 2cm and a large rim mesh is required.