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

Blast and ballistic weapons used on the battlefield cause devastating injuries rarely seen outside armed conflict. These extremely high-energy injuries predominantly affect the limbs and are usually heavily contaminated with soil, foliage, clothing and even tissue from other casualties. Once life-threatening haemorrhage has been addressed, the military surgeon’s priority is to control infection.

Combining historical knowledge from previous conflicts with more recent experience has resulted in a systematic approach to these injuries. Urgent debridement of necrotic and severely contaminated tissue, irrigation and local and systemic antibiotics are the basis of management. These principles have resulted in successful healing of previously unsurvivable wounds. Healthy tissue must be retained for future reconstruction, vulnerable but viable tissue protected to allow survival and avascular tissue removed with all contamination.

While recent technological and scientific advances have offered some advantages, they must be judged in the context of a hard-won historical knowledge of these wounds. This approach is applicable to comparable civilian injury patterns. One of the few potential benefits of war is the associated improvement in our understanding of treating the severely injured; for this positive effect to be realised these experiences must be shared.

Richard Carey Smith is an orthopaedic oncology surgeon with fellowship training in the UK, USA, Australia and Canada, and has worked in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Papa New Guinea. David Wood is head of the University Department of Orthopaedics in Perth, Western Australia. He did his masters in Africa, and first experienced Papa New Guinea on his medical elective, starting a lifelong commitment to medical aid work there.

In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.