Aims. We compared the clinical outcomes of curved intertrochanteric varus osteotomy (CVO) with bone impaction grafting (BIG) with CVO alone for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). Methods. This retrospective comparative study included 81 patients with ONFH; 37 patients (40 hips) underwent CVO with BIG (BIG group) and 44 patients (47 hips) underwent CVO alone (CVO group). Patients in the BIG group were followed-up for a mean of 12.2 years (10.0 to 16.5). Patients in the CVO group were followed-up for a mean of 14.5 years (10.0 to 21.0). Assessment parameters included the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip-Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ), complication rates, and survival rates, with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and radiological failure as the endpoints. Results. There were no significant differences in preoperative and postoperative HHS or postoperative OHS and JHEQ between the BIG group and the CVO group. Complication rates were comparable between groups. Ten-year survival rates with conversion to THA and radiological failure as the endpoints were not significantly different between groups. Successful CVO (postoperative coverage ratio of more than one-third) exhibited better ten-year survival rates with radiological failure as the endpoint in the BIG group (91.4%) than in the CVO group (77.7%), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.079). Conclusion. Long-term outcomes of CVO with BIG were favourable when proper patient selection and accurate surgery are performed. However, this study did not show improvements in treatment results with the concomitant use of BIG. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):665–671

The April 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: Recent arthroplasty and flight; whether that squeak could be a fracture; diagnosing early infected hip replacement; impaction grafting at a decade; whether squeaking is more common than previously thought; femoral offset associated with post THR outcomes; and periprosthetic fracture stabilisation

The December 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: Enhanced recovery works; Acetabular placement; Exercise better than rest in osteoarthritis patients; if Birmingham hip resurfacing is immune from pseudotumour; HIV and arthroplasty; Labral tears revisited; Prophylactic surgery for FAI; and Ceramics and impaction grafting

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aims

We wanted to evaluate the effects of a bone anabolic agent (bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2)) on an anti-catabolic background (systemic or local zoledronate) on fixation of allografted revision implants.

Aims

After failed acetabular fractures, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure and considered the gold standard treatment. The complexity of the procedure depends on the fracture pattern and the initial fracture management. This study’s primary aim was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients who underwent delayed uncemented acetabular THA after acetabular fractures. The secondary aims were to assess the radiological outcome and the incidence of the associated complications in those patients.

Aims

The Exeter V40 cemented polished tapered stem system has demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature and reports on a large case series comparing implant fractures between the Exeter V40 series; 125 mm and conventional length stem systems.

Aims

Complex total hip arthroplasty (THA) with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy is necessary in conditions other than developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and septic arthritis sequelae with significant proximal femur migration. Our aim was to evaluate the hip centre restoration with THAs in these hips.

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.

The February 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Hip arthroplasty in Down syndrome; Bulk femoral autograft successful in acetabular reconstruction; Arthroplasty follow-up: is the internet the solution?; Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture; Salvage arthroplasty following failed hip internal fixation; Bone banking sensible financially and clinically; Allogenic blood transfusion in arthroplasty.

Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

The treatment of osteochondral lesions and osteoarthritis remains an ongoing clinical challenge in orthopaedics. This review examines the current research in the fields of cartilage regeneration, osteochondral defect treatment, and biological joint resurfacing, and reports on the results of clinical and pre-clinical studies. We also report on novel treatment strategies and discuss their potential promise or pitfalls. Current focus involves the use of a scaffold providing mechanical support with the addition of chondrocytes or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or the use of cell homing to differentiate the organism’s own endogenous cell sources into cartilage. This method is usually performed with scaffolds that have been coated with a chemotactic agent or with structures that support the sustained release of growth factors or other chondroinductive agents. We also discuss unique methods and designs for cell homing and scaffold production, and improvements in biological joint resurfacing. There have been a number of exciting new studies and techniques developed that aim to repair or restore osteochondral lesions and to treat larger defects or the entire articular surface. The concept of a biological total joint replacement appears to have much potential.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:193–9.