We have compared four computer-assisted methods to measure penetration of the femoral head into the acetabular component in total hip replacement. These were the Martell Hip Analysis suite 7.14, Rogan HyperOrtho, Rogan View Pro-X and Roman v1.70. The images used for the investigation comprised 24 anteroposterior digital radiographs and 24 conventional acetate radiographs which were scanned to provide digital images. These radiographs were acquired from 24 patients with an uncemented total hip replacement with a follow-up of approximately eight years (mean 8.1; 6.3 to 9.1). Each image was measured twice by two blinded observers. The mean annual rates of penetration of the femoral head measured in the eight-year single image analysis were: Martell, 0.24 (SD 0.19); HyperOrtho, 0.12 (SD 0.08); View Pro-X, 0.12 (SD 0.06); Roman, 0.12 (SD 0.07). In paired analysis of the six-month and eight-year radiographs: Martell, 0.35 (SD 0.22); HyperOrtho, 0.15 (SD 0.13); View Pro-X, 0.11 (SD 0.06); Roman, 0.11 (SD 0.07). The intra- and inter-observer variability for the paired analysis was best for View Pro-X and Roman software, with intraclass correlations of 0.97, 0.87 and 0.96, 0.87, respectively, and worst for HyperOrtho and Martell, with intraclass correlations of 0.46, 0.13 and 0.33, 0.39, respectively.

The Roman method proved the most precise and the most easy to use in clinical practice and the software is available free of charge. The Martell method showed the lowest precision, indicating a problem with its edge detection algorithm on digital images.

We performed a histological and histomorphometric examination in five cadaver specimens of the femoral and acetabular components and the associated tissue which had been recovered between 3.3 and 6.2 years after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a proximal hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium alloy implant. All had functioned well during the patients’ life.

All the stems were fixed in the femur and showed osseointegration of both the proximal and distal parts. The amount of residual HA was greatest in the distal metaphyseal sections, indicating that the rate of bone remodelling may be the main factor causing loss of HA. The level of activity of the patient was the only clinical factor which correlated with loss of coating. The percentage of bone-implant osseointegration was almost constant, regardless of the amount of HA residue, periprosthetic bone density or the time of implantation. HA debris was seldom observed and if present did not cause any adverse or inflammatory reaction. Partial debonding did occur in one case as a result of a polyethylene-induced inflammatory reaction.