Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure. Integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability. Large diameter heads (LDH), Dual Mobility (DM) and Constrained Acetabular Liners (CAL) are enhanced stability options but the indication for these choices remains unclear. We assessed an algorithm based on Gluteus Medius (GM) deficiency to determine bearing selection. Default choice with no GM damage was a LDH. GM deficiency with posterior muscle intact received DM and CAL for GM complete deficiency with loss of posterior muscle. Consecutive revision THA series followed to determine dislocation, all-cause re-revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). 311 revision THA with mean age 70 years (32–95). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years overall dislocation rate 4.1% (95%CI 2.4–7.0) and survivorship free of re-revision 94.2% (95%CI 96.3–91.0). Outcomes:. Group 1 - LDH (36 & 40mm) n=164 / 4 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 2 - DM n=73 / 3 dislocations / 4 re-revisions. Group 3 - CAL n=58 / 5 dislocations / 7 re-revisions. Group 4 - Other (28 & 32mm) n=16 / 1 dislocation / no re-revisions. Mean pre-op OHS: 19.6 (2–47) and mean post-op OHS: 33.9 (4–48). Kaplan-Meier analysis at 60 months dislocation-free survival was 96.1% (95% CI: 93.0–97.8). There was no difference between survival distributions comparing bearing choice (p=0.46). Decision making tools to guide selection are limited and in addition soft tissue deficiency has been poorly defined. The posterior vertical fibres of GM have the greatest lateral stabiliser effect on the hip. The algorithm we have used clearly defined indication & implant selection. We believe our outcomes support the use of an enhanced stability bearing selection algorithm

Aims

This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection.

Aims

Several short- and mid-term studies have shown minimal liner wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), but the safety of using thinner HXLPE liners to maximize femoral head size remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to analyze clinical survival and radiological wear rates of patients with HXLPE liners, a 36 mm femoral head, and a small acetabular component with a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Aims. Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacements (PFEPRs) are the most common reconstruction option for osseous defects following primary and metastatic tumour resection. This study aimed to compare the rate of implant failure between PFEPRs with monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties and acetabular arthroplasties, and determine the optimum articulation for revision PFEPRs. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 233 patients who underwent PFEPR. The mean age was 54.7 years (SD 18.2), and 99 (42.5%) were male. There were 90 patients with primary bone tumours (38.6%), 122 with metastatic bone disease (52.4%), and 21 with haematological malignancy (9.0%). A total of 128 patients had monopolar (54.9%), 74 had bipolar hemiarthroplasty heads (31.8%), and 31 underwent acetabular arthroplasty (13.3%). Results. At a mean 74.4 months follow-up, the overall revision rate was 15.0%. Primary malignancy (p < 0.001) and age < 50 years (p < 0.001) were risk factors for revision. The risks of death and implant failure were similar in patients with primary disease (p = 0.872), but the risk of death was significantly greater for patients who had metastatic bone disease (p < 0.001). Acetabular-related implant failures comprised 74.3% of revisions; however, no difference between hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty groups (p = 0.209), or between monopolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.307), was observed. There was greater radiological wear in patients with longer follow-up and primary bone malignancy. Re-revision rates following a revision PFEPR was 34.3%, with dual-mobility bearings having the lowest rate of instability and re-revision (15.4%). Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty and arthroplasty PFEPRs carry the same risk of revision in the medium term, and is primarily due to acetabular complications. There is no difference in revision rates or erosion between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties. The main causes of failure were acetabular wear in the hemiarthroplasty group and instability in the arthroplasty group. These risks should be balanced and patient prognosis considered when contemplating the bearing choice. Dual-mobility, constrained bearings, or large diameter heads (> 32 mm) are recommended in all revision PFEPRs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1633–1640

Aims. The purpose of this study is to examine six types of bearing surfaces implanted at a single institution over three decades to determine whether the reasons for revision vary among the groups and how long it takes to identify differences in survival. Methods. We considered six cohorts that included a total of 1,707 primary hips done between 1982 and 2010. These included 223 conventional polyethylene sterilized with γ irradiation in air (CPE-GA), 114 conventional polyethylene sterilized with gas plasma (CPE-GP), 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 1,083 metal-on-metal (MOM), 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC), and 81 surface arthroplasties (SAs). With the exception of the COC, all other groups used cobalt-chromium (CoCr) femoral heads. The mean follow-up was 10 (0.008 to 35) years. Descriptive statistics with revisions per 100 component years (re/100 yr) and survival analysis with revision for any reason as the endpoint were used to compare bearing surfaces. Results. XLPE liners demonstrated a lower cumulative incidence of revision at 15 years compared to the CPE-GA and CPE-GP groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (4% for XLPE vs 18%, p = 0.02, and 15%, p = 0.003, respectively). Revisions for adverse local tissue reactions occurred exclusively among the MOM (0.8 re/100 year) and SA groups (0.1 re/100 year). The revision rate for instability was lower among hips with 36 mm and larger head sizes compared to smaller head sizes (0.2% vs 2%, p < 0.001). Conclusion. The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up compared to CPE-GP and CPE-GA. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. The potential for adverse local tissue reactions with MOM requires continued follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):105–111

Introduction. Prior to the introduction of alternative bearing surfaces, patients were typically counseled to expect that their total hip arthroplasty (THA) using conventional polyethylene would last for 10 years. With the introduction of crosslinked polyethylene and hard-on-hard bearing surfaces, revisions related to bearing surface wear were expected to decrease. We examined six different bearing surfaces used at our institution over three decades to evaluate how the overall survivorship, reasons for revision and Harris Hip Scores have changed with time. Methods. We identified six cohorts of patients with 754 primary hips done between 1983 and 2007. With the exception of 81 Birmingham hip resurfacings (BHR), all femoral components were straight, extensively porous-coated cylindrical (EPC) stems (AML and Prodigy). All cups were porous coated. In addition to the BHRs, the bearing surfaces included 223 conventional polyethylene (CPE) in a non-modular shell, 114 CPE in a modular shell, 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 130 metal-on-metal (MOM), and 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC). The mean follow-up for all hip replacements is 13.0±6.0 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship using revision for any reason as an endpoint with log rank testing was used to evaluate differences among groups. Results. Although there were no differences in survivorship at 10-year follow-up among the groups (p=0.53), the XLPE liners demonstrated improved survivorship at 15-years compared to both CPE groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (97% versus 83% for non-modular and 85% for modular cups respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.008). Revisions for femoral loosening have only occurred among 0.6% (4/673) of EPC stems. Revisions for cup loosening have occurred among 4% (10/223) of the non-modular cups but there are none among the other groups. The incidence of dislocation was reduced with the MOM, BHR and COC bearings that used 36-mm or larger femoral heads compared to the THAs that used 28-mm or 32-mm heads [1.1 % (3/261) versus 5.1% (25/493), p<0.01]. Infection has led to revision among 2 THAs with CPE in non-modular cups (0.9%), 2 MOM (1.5%), and 2 COC (2.2%). At 10-year follow-up, Harris Hip Scores tended to be higher among the BHRs compared to the other groups (92.1 versus 82.9, p<0.01). Discussion. The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up. Hard-on-hard bearing surfaces are performing relatively well but differences are not yet discernable compared to CPE. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. Infection continues to occur although the incidence remains low. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Objectives. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures; several bearing technologies have been used, however none of these is optimal. Metal on polycarbonate-urethane (PCU) is a new bearing technology with several potential advantages: PCU is a hydrophilic soft pliable implant quite similar in elasticity to human cartilage, offers biostability, high resistance to hydrolysis, oxidation, and calcification, no biodegradation, low wear rate and high corrosion resistance and can be coupled with large metal heads (Tribofit Hip System, THS). The aim of this prospective study was to report the survivorship and the clinical and radiographic outcomes and the metal ions dosage of a group of patients operated with metal on PCU arthroplasty featuring large metal diameter heads, at 5 years from surgery. Study Design & Methods. 68 consecutive patients treated with the THS were included. The patients have been contacted by phone call and invited to return to our centre for clinical (Oxford Hip Score, OHS, and Harris Hip Score, HHS), radiographic exam and metal ion levels evaluation. All the patients were operated with uncemented stems. Results. The survival rate is 100% and no major complications were seen. The average preoperative OHS was 17 (6–34), at follow-up it was 44 (40–48). The average preoperative HHS was 48 (12–76), at follow-up it was 93 (84–100). On the x rays taken at follow-up, no signs of periprosthetic bone rarefaction and/or osteolysis were seen. No signs of PCU liner wear were visible. At follow up mean Co serum level was 0.52 ng/mL (<0.1–2.5, sd 0.5), mean Cr level was 0.27 ng/mL (0.1–2.2, sd 0.2). In this prospective study at a mean follow up of 5 years, all implants were well functioning, with no radiological signs of loosening and normal serum levels of cobalt and chrome. Although large diameter metal heads and metal sleeve were used no trunnionosis occurred. Conclusions. We believe that these positive outcomes are due the positive biomechanical characteristics of PCU. These results need to be confirmed at a longer follow up and in a more active younger patient population

Aims

The present study investigated the five-year interval changes in pseudotumours and measured serum metal ions at long-term follow-up of a previous report of 28 mm diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims. This study reports the mid-term results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed using a monoblock acetabular component with a large-diameter head (LDH) ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing. Patients and Methods. Of the 276 hips (246 patients) included in this study, 264 (96%) were reviewed at a mean of 67 months (48 to 79) postoperatively. Procedures were performed with a mini posterior approach. Clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded at regular intervals. A noise assessment questionnaire was completed at last follow-up. Results. There were four re-operations (1%) including one early revision for insufficient primary fixation (0.4%). No hip dislocation was reported. The mean University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were 6.6 (2 to 10), 52.8 (25.5 to 65.7), 53.0 (27.2 to 66.5), 7.7 (0 to 63), and 88.5 (23 to 100), respectively. No signs of loosening or osteolysis were observed on radiological review. The incidence of squeaking was 23% (n = 51/225). Squeaking was significantly associated with larger head diameter (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), higher SF-12 PCS (p < 0.001), and UCLA scores (p < 0.001). Squeaking did not affect patient satisfaction, with 100% of the squeaking hips satisfied with the surgery. Conclusion. LDH CoC THAs have demonstrated excellent functional outcomes at medium-term follow-up, with very low revision rate and no dislocations. The high incidence of squeaking did not affect patient satisfaction or function. LDH CoC with a monoblock acetabular component has the potential to provide long term implant survivorship with unrestricted activity, while avoiding implant impingement, liner fracture at insertion, and hip instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1434–41

Aims

There are limited published data detailing the volumetric material loss from tapers of conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Our aim was to address this by comparing the taper wear rates measured in an explanted cohort of the widely used Exeter THA with those measured in a group of metal-on-metal (MoM) THAs.

The interest in osteolysis has waned largely due to the impact of crosslinked polyethylene and the “rarity” of this phenomenon. However, the basic process still remains: particles, motion observed with unstable implants and host specific factors all play a role in bone loss around implants. There are 2 predominant patterns of lysis: Linear versus Expansile. Linear Lysis: is focal bone loss at the interface as seen in the bone cement interface in when using acrylic or at the implant-host interface with porous ingrowth/ongrowth implants. Expansile Lysis: is observed in less contained regions such as the retro- and supra-acetabular regions around the socket. These lesions can also be quite extensive yet may be subtle in appearance. Imaging is essential in identifying the extent and magnitude of osteolysis. Available modalities include plain radiographs although they can be of limited value in that even with oblique views, they often underestimate the degree of bone loss. CT scans are useful but can be limited by artifact. Several centers have explored the role of MRI in assessing lysis. It can be useful for bone loss and provides excellent assessment for soft tissue: abductors, neurovascular structures. Metal artifact reduction sequencing is required to maximise information obtainable. Management of osteolysis: Identification and monitoring periprosthetic osteolysis is a crucial element of patient care. Progressive bone loss leading to loss of fixation and the potential risk for periprosthetic fracture is a real possibility and early recognition and intervention is a priority. The basic Guiding Principles of management are centered around several key elements including the source of osteolysis and degree, the fixation of implant, the location of lysis, the track record of implant system, the presence of patient symptoms (if any), and finally the patient age, activity level, and general health. Specifics of treatment of osteolysis around the acetabulum: With cemented sockets, lysis is typically seen late and frequently at the bone-cement interface. It is often associated with a loose implant and the prime indication for surgery may be pain. Treatment involves implant removal and revision with an uncemented cup and bone grafting or augmentation as needed. With uncemented sockets in the setting of osteolysis, there are several factors to consider. These have been stratified by Rubash, Maloney, and Paprosky. The treatment of these sockets has been summarised as follows: for Type I and Type II with limited lysis, lesional treatment such as debridement and bone grafting with head and polyethylene exchange has been suggested. WATCH for impingement!!!! Graft defects via trap-doors can be performed but make the door big enough to graft. Small doors and grafting through screw holes is at best marginal. In instances of compromised locking mechanisms, consider cementing the liner into the shell. For Type II and Type III implants, revision of the component is recommended. With the currently available cementless cup extraction tools, I rarely hesitate to remove a cup with moderate lysis and a broken locking mechanism: better access to lytic areas, better grafting achieved. CAVEAT #1: the disadvantage of implant removal is that it is clearly a bigger procedure and fixation of the new implant may be more difficult. Risks vs. rewards. CAVEAT #2: Socket revision in the setting of failed MOM implants has some unique “issues”. In the Vancouver series, almost 25% of the revision cups failed to achieve biologic fixation. As such, recommendation for using “enhanced” porous implants during revision seems prudent. Additionally, despite the use of larger diameter heads, instability rates remain high

Key Points:. Historically, 22.25, 26, 28, or 32 mm metal femoral heads were used in primary total hip arthroplasty, but innovations in materials now permit head sizes 36 mm or larger. Stability and wear of primary total hip arthroplasty are related to the diameter and material of the femoral head. Larger diameter femoral heads are associated with increased joint stability through increases in arc range of motion and excursion distance prior to dislocation. Fixation of the acetabular component may be related to the size of the femoral head, with increased frictional torque associated with large diameter heads and certain polyethylene. Linear wear of highly crosslinked polyethylenes seems unrelated to femoral head diameter, but larger heads have been reported to have higher volumetric wear. Mechanically assisted crevice corrosion at the connection between the modular femoral head and neck may be associated with the femoral head size and material. Cobalt chromium alloy, alumina ceramic composite, or oxidised zirconium femoral heads on highly crosslinked polyethylene are the most commonly used bearing surfaces, but each may have unique risks and benefits. Conclusions. At present, there is a wave of enthusiasm for the routine use of “large” (32, 36 mm, or larger) femoral heads with highly crosslinked polyethylene for the vast majority of patients having a primary THA. It may be reasonable to consider the “graduated femoral head-outer acetabular diameter system”, using 28 mm femoral heads with “smaller” acetabular components (<50 mm), 32 mm femoral heads with acetabular components 50 – 56 mm outer diameter, and 36 mm or larger femoral heads with acetabular components 58 mm or larger in diameter, to minimise both the risk of dislocation and the frictional torque. Although the linear wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene appears to be independent of head size, the reported increase in volumetric wear with large femoral heads and highly crosslinked polyethylene requires further study, and should temper the use of femoral heads 36 mm or larger in younger and more active patients. With its long and successful history, it is difficult to recommend the complete abandonment of the cobalt chromium alloy femoral head in all patients having a primary THA. Alumina ceramic or oxidised zirconium heads may be considered for younger, heavier, and more active patients, who seem to have the highest risk of trunnion corrosion. Surgeons and patients should be aware of the unique possible complications of these two newer femoral head materials

The Failed Femoral Neck Fracture. For the young patient: Attempt to preserve patient's own femoral head. Clinical results reasonably good even if there are patches of avascular necrosis. Preferred methods of salvage: valgus-producing intertrochanteric femoral osteotomy: puts the nonunion under compression. Other treatment option: Meyer's vascularised pedicle graft. For the older patient: Most reliable treatment is prosthetic replacement. Decision to use hemiarthroplasty (such as bipolar) or THA based on quality of articular cartilage, perceived risk of instability problem. In most patients THA provides higher likelihood of excellent pain relief. Specific technical issues: (1) hardware removal: usually remove after hip has first been dislocated (to reduce risk of femur fracture); (2) Hip stability: consider methods to reduce dislocation risk: larger diameter heads/dual mobility/anteriorly-based approaches; (3) Acetabular bone quality: poor because it is not sclerotic from previous arthritis; caution when impacting a pressfit cup; low threshold to augment fixation with screws; don't overdo reaming; just expose the bleeding subchondral bone. A reasonable alternative is a cemented cup. The Failed Intertrochanteric Hip Fracture. For the young patient: Attempt to salvage hip joint with nonunion takedown, autogenous bone grafting and internal fixation. For the older patient: Decision to preserve patient's own hip with internal fixation versus salvage with hip arthroplasty should be individualised based on patient circumstances, fracture pattern, bone quality. THA is an effective salvage procedure for this problem in older patients. If prosthetic replacement is chosen special considerations include:. THA vs. hemiarthroplasty: hemiarthroplasty better stability; THA more reliable pain relief. Removal of hardware: be prepared to remove broken screws in intramedullary canal. Management of bone loss: bone loss to level of lesser trochanter common. Often requires a calcar replacement implant. Proximal calcar build-up size dictated by bone loss. Length of stem: desirable to bypass screw holes from previous fixation, if possible. Stem fixation: cemented or uncemented fixation depending on surgeon preference, bone quality. If uncemented, consider diaphyseal fixation. Greater trochanter: often a separate piece, be prepared to fix with wires or cable grip. Residual trochanteric healing, hardware problems not rare after THA

Aims

Dislocation rates are reportedly lower in patients requiring proximal femoral hemiarthroplasty than for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for neoplasia. Without acetabular replacement, pain due to acetabular wear necessitating revision surgery has been described. We aimed to determine whether wear of the native acetabulum following hemiarthroplasty necessitates revision surgery with secondary replacement of the acetabulum after proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for tumour reconstruction.

Recent advances in polyethylene and ceramic technologies has allowed us to use larger size heads without compromising the wear properties of a THR. One benefit of this change has been proposed to be a lower incidence of dislocation. This is a retrospective study looking at the effect of using large heads in our patient population. We retrospectively evaluated the dislocation rate in 913 THR's performed using the same standardized surgical technique employed by a single team of surgeons at our institution between 1995 and 2015. Patients were assigned to two groups: small (28 mm and smaller) (SH), large diameter heads (36 mm and larger) (LH). The cup position was measured and plotted to determine its status according to the Lewinnek safe zone (15°±10° for anteversion, 40°±10° for inclination). Sixteen of the 472 SH dislocated (3.4 percent) while 5 of the 441 LH group (1.1 percent) (P=0.04). In all of the LH patients that dislocated the cup position was in the safe range of Lewinnek. However, in the LH group only 65 percent of the cups were in the safe zone. Using the same surgical approach by changing the head size to 36 mm and larger, we were able decrease the dislocation rate significantly. Errors of cup positioning according to Lewinnek became oblivious when using large heads compared to small heads. In our opinion, using large heads in total hip arthroplasty makes a difference in terms of dislocation

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after revision THA using the posterolateral approach. Although the cause of dislocation after revision THA is multifactorial, the historically high dislocation rates have been shown to be significantly reduced by closing the posterior capsule and by the use of large diameter (36 and 40 mm) femoral heads. The relative importance of each of these strategies on the rate of dislocation remains unknown. We undertook a study to determine if increasing femoral head diameter, in addition to posterior capsule closure would influence the dislocation rate following revision THA. We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients who underwent a revision THA. We included all patients who underwent revision THA with closure of the posterior capsule and who had at least a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded patients undergoing a revision THA for dislocation or multistage revision for infection since these patients would likely have deficient posterior tissues. Forty-eight patients had a 28 mm femoral head, 47 had a 32 mm head and 49 patients had a 36 mm femoral head. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, there were 3 dislocations. There were no dislocations in the 28 mm group (0%), 2 in the 32 mm group (4%) and 1 in the 36 mm group (2%). All patients were successfully treated with a closed reduction. No patients had recurrent dislocation. Head size alone was not found to significantly decrease the risk of dislocation (28mm vs 32mm p=0.12; 28mm vs 36mm p=0.27; 32mm vs 36mm p=0.40). Both large diameter heads and careful attention to surgical technique with posterior capsule closure can decrease the historically high dislocation rate after revision THA when utilizing the posterolateral approach. The additional use of a large diameter head did not have a significant impact on the already low dislocation rate. Capsular closure outweighs the effect of femoral head diameter in preventing dislocation following revision THA through a posterolateral approach

The number one reason to consider large heads in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is for increased stability. Large diameter femoral heads substantially increase stability by virtue of increased range of motion and increased jump distance, which is the amount of displacement required to sublux the head out of the socket. Prevention is the best means for reducing dislocation, with requisites for stability being appropriate component position, restoration of leg length, and restoration of offset. In a review from our center studying the frequency of dislocation with small diameter femoral heads (≤32 mm) in 1262 patients (1518 hips) who underwent primary THA performed via a direct lateral approach, we observed a dislocation rate of 0.8% (12 of 1518). In a subsequent study of 1748 patients (2020 hips) who underwent primary THA at our center with large diameter heads (mean 43 mm, range 36–60 mm), we observed a substantially lower 0.04% frequency of dislocation (one of 2010) at a mean followup of 2.6 years. Our findings have been echoed in studies from several other centers. Howie et al. reported a prospective controlled trial of 644 low risk patients undergoing primary or revision THA randomised to receive either a 36 mm or 28 mm metal head articulated on highly crosslinked polyethylene. They observed significantly lower frequency of frequency of dislocation with 36 mm heads both overall (1.3%, 4 of 299 versus 5.4%, 17 of 216 with 28 mm heads, p=0.012) and in primary use (0.8%, 2 of 258 versus 4.4%, 12 of 275 with 28 mm heads, p=0.024), and a similar trend in their smaller groups of revision patients (5%, 2 of 41, versus 12%, 5 of 41 with 28 mm heads, p=0.273). Lachiewicz and Soileau reported on early and late dislocation with 36- and 40 mm heads in 112 patients (122 hips) at presumed high risk for dislocation who underwent primary THA. Risk factors were age >75 for 80 hips, proximal femur fracture for 18, history of contralateral dislocation for 2, history of alcohol abuse in 2, large acetabulum (>60 mm) in 6, and other reasons in 14. Early dislocation (<1 year) occurred in 4% (5 of 122), all with 36 mm heads. Late dislocation (>5 years) did not occur in any of the 74 patients with followup beyond 5 years. Stroh et al. compared 225 patients (248 hips) treated with THA using small diameter heads (<36 mm) to 501 patients (559 hips) treated with THA using large diameter heads (≥36 mm). There were no dislocations with large diameter heads compared with 1.8% (10 of 559) with small diameter heads. Allen et al. studied whether or not large femoral heads improve functional outcome after primary THA via the posterior approach in 726 patients. There were 399 done with small heads (<36 mm), 254 with medium heads (36 mm), and 73 with large heads (>36 mm), analyzed pre-operatively, at 6 months, and at 12 months. The authors could not find a correlation between increasing head size and improved function at one year, but observed that dislocation was reduced with large diameter heads. Optimization of hip biomechanics via proper surgical technique, component position, and restoration of leg length and offset are mandatory in total hip arthroplasty. Large heads enhance stability by increasing range of motion prior to impingement and enhancing jump stability

Introduction & aims. Total hip replacement is an excellent treatment option for people with late stage degenerative hip disease. In addition to marked reduction in pain and improvement in sleep, most people regain range of motion, physical ability and quality of life. This study aimed at the functional outcomes of large diameter heads in THR patients. Method. This study is an analysis of a cohort of patients undergoing total hip replacement performed at our hospital from November 2011 to July 2013. A total of 70 hips, 40 males and 30 females, were operated upon with large diameter femoral heads. The mean age was 50.38 years (range 40–59 years). In our cohort, 32 patients had AVN of femur head, 19 had post traumatic secondary degeneration, 10 had RA, 6 had AS and 3 patients had OA of hip. The follow-up data included local complications, Harris Hip Score, medical complications, readmission, activity status and use of a walking aid. Results. Harris hip score at final follow up was, 33 cases had excellent, 26 cases had good result. None of the patient had fair or poor result. Two cases of superficial infection were observed. One case of dislocation was observed in post operative period which was reduced under GA and patient was given abduction brace. The mean follow up was 16.31 months ranging from 6 to 32 months. During the follow up, we had mortality of two patients. One died at 14 months due to myocardial infarction and the cause of other died due to CVA at 10 months follow up. Conclusions. Lower dislocation rate and better range of motion in majority of cases reinforces the advantage of large diameter head in THR in young and active patients. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

The metal on metal implants was introduced without the proper stepwise introduction. The ASR resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) withdrawn due to high clinical failure rates and the large diameter head THA (LDH-THA) are also widely abandoned. Early (2 year) radiostereometry studies does not support early instability as cause of failure but more likely metal wear products. A possible advantage may be maintenance of bone mineral density (BMD). We present 5 year prospective follow up from a randomized series, aiming to report changes from baseline and to investigate links between implant micromotion, Cr & Co ions and BMD. Patients eligible for an artificial hip were randomized to RHA, Biomet LDH-THA or standard Biometric THA. 19, 17 and 15 patients completed 5 year follow-up. All followed with BMD of the femur, acetabulum and for RHA the collum. RHA and THA with whole blood Co and Co. LDH-THA only at 5 year. RHA had marker based RSA of both components, cup only for LDH-THA. Translations were compiled to total translation (TT= √(x. 2. +y. 2. +z. 2. )). Data were collected at baseline, 8 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years. Statistical tests: ANCOVA for TT movement, Spearman's correlation for BMD, Cr, Co and BMI to TT at 5 years. RSA: The 5 year median (25%to75%) RHA cup translations were X=-0.00(−0.49 to 0.19) Y=0.15(−0.03 to 0.20), z=0.24(−0.42 to 0.37) and TT 0.58 (0.16 to 1.82) mm. For the LDH-THA X=−0.33(−0.90 to 0.20) Y=0.28(0.02 to 0.54), z=0.43(−1.12 to −0.19) and TT 1.06 (0.97 to 1.72) mm. The TT was statistically different (p<0.05) for the two cups. The RHA femoral component moved X=0.37(0.21 to 0.56) Y=0.02(−0.07 to 0.11), z=-0.01(−0.07 to 0.26) and TT 0.48 (0.29 to 0.60) mm at 5 years. There was no TT movement from year 2. The mean (SD) acetabular BMD was diminished to 93(90–97)% for RHA and 97(93–99.9)% for THA, but LDH-THA maintained 99(95–103)%. Overall femoral BMD was unchanged at 5 years for all interventions, but both stemmed implants lost 17% at the calcar. Median (25%to75%) whole-blood Cr peaked in the LDH-THA group with 1.7 (0.9 to 3.1) followed by RHA 1.2 (0.8 to 5.0) and THA with 0.5 (0.4 to 0.7)ppb. For Co the highest levels were found in RHA with 1.6(0.8 to 4.7) followed by LDH-THA 1.2 (0.7–1.7) and THA 0.2 (0.2 to 0.6) ppb. The only correlations above +/−0.3 for TT were the RHA femoral component with a correlation of 0.47 to BMI, 0.30 to Co and Cr. The ASR cup conversely had a negative correlation of −0.60 to BMI and again, the LDH-THA cup had a negative correlation of −0.37 to Cr. In contrast to registered revision rates, we found significantly larger movement for the Biomet cup than the ASR cup. The metal ion levels were similar. The LDH-THA cup maintained the acetabular BMD best at 5 years, but the difference was small, we are limited by small numbers and the correlations between TT and the covariates showed no clear pattern