Aims. Improvements in functional results and long-term survival are variable following conversion of hip fusion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and complications are high. The aim of the study was to analyze the clinical and functional results in patients who underwent conversion of hip fusion to THA using a consistent technique and uncemented implants. Methods. A total of 39 hip fusion conversions to THA were undertaken in 38 patients by a single surgeon employing a consistent surgical technique and uncemented implants. Parameters assessed included Harris Hip Score (HHS) for function, range of motion (ROM), leg length discrepancy (LLD), satisfaction, and use of walking aid. Radiographs were reviewed for loosening, subsidence, and heterotopic ossification (HO). Postoperative complications and implant survival were assessed. Results. At mean 12.2 years (2 to 24) follow-up, HHS improved from mean 34.2 (20.8 to 60.5) to 75 (53.6 to 94.0; p < 0.001). Mean postoperative ROM was flexion 77° (50° to 95°), abduction 30° (10° to 40°), adduction 20° (5° to 25°), internal rotation 18° (2° to 30°), and external rotation 17° (5° to 30°). LLD improved from mean -3.36 cm (0 to 8) to postoperative mean -1.14 cm (0 to 4; p < 0.001). Postoperatively, 26 patients (68.4%) required the use of a walking aid. Complications included one (2.5%) dislocation, two (5.1%) partial sciatic nerve injuries, one (2.5%) deep periprosthetic joint infection, two instances of (5.1%) acetabular component aseptic loosening, two (5.1%) periprosthetic fractures, and ten instances of HO (40%), of which three (7.7%) were functionally limiting and required excision. Kaplan-Meier Survival was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.4% to 100%) at ten years and 88.2% (95% CI 70.96 to 100) at 15 years with implant revision for aseptic loosening as endpoint and 81.7% (95% CI 70.9% to 98.0%) at ten years and 74.2% (95% CI 55.6 to 92.8) at 15 years follow-up with implant revision for all cause failure as endpoint. Conclusion. The use of an optimal and consistent surgical technique and cementless implants can result in significant functional improvement, low complication rates, long-term implant survival, and high patient satisfaction following conversion of hip fusion to THA. The possibility of requiring a walking aid should be discussed with the patient before surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):129–134

Aims

Despite advances in the treatment of paediatric hip disease, adolescent and young adult patients can develop early onset end-stage osteoarthritis. The aims of this study were to address the indications and medium-term outcomes for total hip arthroplasty (THA) with ceramic bearings for teenage patients.

Patients with longstanding hip fusion are predisposed to symptomatic degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, ipsilateral knee and contralateral hip. 1. In such patients, conversion of hip arthrodesis to hip replacement can provide relief of such symptoms. 2 – 4. However, this is a technically demanding procedure associated with higher complication and failure rates than routine total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to determine the functional results and complications in patients undergoing hip fusion conversion to total hip replacement, performed or supervised by a single surgeon. Twenty-eight hip fusions were converted between 1996 and 2016. Mean follow up was 7 years (3 to 18 years). The reasons for arthrodesis were trauma 11, septic arthritis 10, and dysplasia 7. The mean age at conversion was 52.4 years (26 to 77). A trochanteric osteotomy was performed in all hips. Uncemented components were used. A constrained liner was used in 7 hips. Heterotopic ossification prophylaxis was not used in this series. HHS improved a mean of 27 points (37.4 pre-op to 64.3 post-op). A cane was used in 30% of patients before conversion and 80% after. Heterotopic ossification occurred in 12 (42.9%) hips. There was 2 peroneal nerve injuries, 1 dislocation, 1 GT non-union and 1 infection. There have been 5 revisions; 2 for aseptic loosening, 1 for infection, 1 for recurrent dislocation and 1 for leg length discrepancy. Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotropic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function

The unparalleled events of the year 2020 continue to evolve and challenge the worldwide community on a daily basis. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on all aspects of our lives, and has caused major morbidity and mortality around the globe. The impact of COVID-19 on the practice of orthopedic surgery has been substantial with practice shutdowns, elective surgery restrictions, heightened utilization of telemedicine platforms and implementation of precautionary measures for in-person clinic visits. During this transition period the scholarly and educational pursuits of academic surgeons have been de-emphasized as the more immediate demands of clinical practice survivorship have been the priority. This unavoidable focus on clinical practice has heightened the importance of orthopedic subspecialty societies in maintaining an appropriate level of attention on research and educational activities. Under the outstanding presidential leadership of Robert Barrack, MD, The Hip Society adapted to the profound challenges of 2020, and maintained strong leadership in the realms of education and research. The recent 2020 summer meeting of the Hip Society was a testimonial to the resilience and dedication of the Society members to ongoing innovation in research and education. Due to travel and social distancing restrictions the 2020 summer meeting was transitioned from an in-person to a virtual meeting format. Dr Barrack and Program Chair Dr John Clohisy assisted with oversight of the meeting, while Olga Foley and Cynthia Garcia ensured the success of the meeting with remarkable planning and organization. These collaborative efforts resulted in an organized, well-attended, high level scientific meeting with engaging discussion and a remarkable virtual conference environment. The Bone & Joint Journal is very pleased to partner with The Hip Society to publish the proceedings of this very unique virtual meeting. The Hip Society is based in the United States and membership is granted to select individuals for leadership accomplishments in education and research related to hip disease. The Society is focused on the mission of advancing the knowledge and treatment of hip disorders to improve the lives of patients. The vision of the Hip Society is to lead in the discovery and dissemination of knowledge related to disorders of the hip. The annual closed meeting is one of the most important events of the society as this gathering highlights timely, controversial and novel research contributions from the membership. The top research papers from The Hip Society meeting will be published and made available to the wider orthopedic community in The Bone & Joint Journal. This partnership with The Bone & Joint Journal enhances the mission and vision of The Hip Society by international dissemination of the meeting proceedings. Given the far-reaching circulation of The Bone & Joint Journal the highest quality work is available to an expanding body of surgeons, associated healthcare providers and patients. Ultimately, this facilitates the overarching Hip Society goal of improving the lives of our patients. The 2020 virtual Hip Society meeting was characterized by outstanding member attendance, high quality paper presentations and robust discussion sessions. The meeting was held over two days and encompassed 58 open paper presentations divided into ten sessions with moderated discussions after each session. All papers will be presented in this issue in abstract form, while selected full papers passing our rigorous peer review process will be available online and in The Bone & Joint Journal in a dedicated supplement in 2021. The first session of the meeting focused on issues related to complex primary THA and osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Dr Gross presented on the conversion of hip fusion to THA in 28 patents at a mean 7 years. He reported a high clinical success rate, yet complications of heterotopic ossification and neurologic injury were relatively common. Consideration of heterotopic ossification prophylaxis and the selective use of a constrained liner were recommended. Dr Pagnano summarized the use of various contemporary porous acetabular components in 38 hips in the setting of prior pelvic radiation. The mean follow-up was 5 years and 10 year survivorship was 100% with all implants radiographically fixed. Dr Bolognesi's study demonstrated that THA in solid organ transplant patients is associated with higher risk for facility placement, transfusions and readmissions. This patient population also has increased mortality risk (4.3% risk at 1 year) especially lung transplant patients. The second group of papers focused on femoral head osteonecrosis. Dr Iorio presented single center data demonstrating that CT scan was a useful adjunct for diagnosis in the staging work-up for cancer, yet was not useful for ARCO staging and treatment decision-making. On the basic science side, Dr Goodman utilized a rabbit model of steroid-induced femoral head osteonecrosis to determine that immunomodulation with IL-4 has the potential to improve bone healing after core decompression. The session was concluded by Dr Nelson's study of ceramic-on-ceramic THA in 108 osteonecrosis patients. The median 12 year results were outstanding with marked increases in PROs, maintenance of high activity levels, and a 3.7% revision rate. In the second session attention was directed to THA instability and spinopelvic mobility. Dr Sierra presented a machine learning algorithm for THA dislocation risk. Two modifiable variables (anterior/lateral approach, elevated liner) were most influential in minimizing dislocation risk. Dr Taunton's study demonstrated a deep learning artificial intelligence model derived from postoperative radiographs to predict THA dislocation risk. High sensitivity and negative predictive value suggest that this model may be helpful in assessing postoperative dislocation risk. In reviewing a large single-center, multiple surgeon cohort of 2,831 DAA procedures, Dr Moskal noted a very low dislocation rate (0.45%) at minimum 2 years. Importantly, spinopelvic pathology or prior spinal instrumentation was not associated with an increased dislocation risk (0.30%). Dr Huo and colleagues analyzed pelvic tilt during functional gait in patients with acetabular dysplasia. They detected variable pelvic tilt on different surfaces with the data suggesting that patients with more anterior pelvic tilt while standing tend to have greater compensatory posterior pelvic tilt during gait. Dr Lamontagne reported on the sagittal and axial spinomobility in patients with hip OA, and highlighted reductions in pelvic tilt, pelvic-femoral-angle, lumbar lordosis and seated maximal trunk rotation when compared to controls. Dr Dennis showed that differences in spinopelvic mobility may explain the variable accuracy of acetabular version measurements on the cross-table lateral radiographs. Dr Gwo-Chin presented on a comprehensive functional analysis of 1,592 patients undergoing THA and observed that spinopelvic abnormalities are not infrequent (14%) in THA patients. Consistent with these findings Dr Murphy and collaborators identified a low prevalence of previous spinal instrumentation (1.5%), yet a high prevalence of spine stiffness (27.6%) in 149 patients undergoing THA. Session three highlighted various aspects of treating hip disease in young patients. Dr Peters investigated the need for subsequent hip arthroscopy in 272 patients treated with an isolated PAO. Only 4.8% of these patients required subsequent arthroscopy calling into question the routine use of combined arthroscopy and PAO. Three papers addressed questions related to THA in young patients. Dr Berend's study of 2532 hips demonstrated that high activity level was not associated with an increased risk of midterm aseptic or all cause failure. Dr Nunley presented on 43 young patients with an average age of 52 years treated with a cementless stem and modular dual mobility articulation. Stress shielding was minimal and no concerning metal ion release detected. Dr Garvin summarized minimum 15 year data of THA with highly cross-linked polyethylene in patient less than 50 years. These hips performed exceptionally well with no mechanical loosening or radiographic osteolysis. Dr Engh examined 10 year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant and reported a 92.9 % overall survivorship, with males less than 55 years achieving a 98.3% survivorship. The session was concluded by long-term data on the Conserve Plus hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Dr Amstutz presented an impressive dataset depicting an 83.1% 20 year survivorship for this early resurfacing cohort. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty was the focus of session four. Dr Meneghini reported on the anesthesia and surgical times of direct anterior and posterior approaches from a large healthcare system database. These data suggested longer OR and surgical times for the DAA both in the inpatient and ASC environments. Dr Clohisy introduced the technique and early outcomes of lateral decubitus position DAA. In a learning curve experience of 257 hips. 96% of acetabular components were in the Lewinneck safe zone, the aseptic revision rate was 0.9% and there were no dislocations. Dr Beaule analyzed femoral stem cement mantle with the DAA and posterior approaches by comparing two matched cohorts. Stem alignment and cement mantle quality were equivalent with both approaches. Similarly, Dr Emerson demonstrated technical feasibility and fewer cemented femoral stem failures when compared to cementless stems in a series of 360 DAAs THAs. The final paper of the session presented by Dr Hamilton examined the impact of surgical approach on dislocation after isolated head and liner exchange. Neither the posterior nor the anterior approach was superior in reducing the dislocation rate for these high dislocation risk procedures. The fifth session explored contemporary topics related to anesthesia and pain management. Dr Byrd opened the session with a comparative study evaluating general versus spinal anesthesia for hip arthroscopy. This preliminary study was provoked by the desire to minimize aerosolized exposure early in the COVID-19 pandemic by transitioning to spinal anesthesia. Both anesthetic methods were effective. Dr Austin presented a randomized, double-blind controlled trial comparing spinal anesthetic with mepivacaine, hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric bupivacaine. Mepivacaine patients ambulated earlier and were more likely to be discharged the same day. Dr Mont provided a very timely study on the effects of “cannabis use disorder” and THA outcomes. This administrative database study of 44,154 patients revealed this disorder to be associated with longer hospital stays, increased complications rates and higher costs. Dr Bedair investigated whether a highly porous acetabular component submerged in an analgesic solution could enhance perioperative pain management. Interestingly, this novel strategy was associated with a reduction of postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in 100 experimental patients compared to 100 controls. The concluding paper of the session by Dr Della Valle examined whether decreased discharge opioids led to increased postoperative opioid refills. A large single-center study of 19,428 patients detected a slight increase (5%) in opioid refills but a reduction in total refill morphine milligram equivalents. The final, sixth session of day one considered various challenging aspects of revision hip arthroplasty. Dr Nam started the session with review of preliminary results from a randomized control trial comparing closed incision negative-pressure therapy with a silver-impregnated dressing for wound management in 113 hips undergoing revision arthroplasty. Unlike previous reports, the negative pressure therapy was associated with a higher reoperation rate for wound-related complications. Dr Bostrom highlighted the potential clinical impact of basic biological interventions by establishing the presence of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETS) in fibrotic tissue from human aseptic loosening specimens and in a murine model of unstable tibial implantation. NET inhibition in the murine model prevented the expected tibial implant osseointegration failure. Dr Lombardi presented early 3.3 year clinical results of a highly porous Ti6al4v acetabular component in complex primary and revision arthroplasty. Survivorship for aseptic loosening was 96.6 % and 95.3% for the primary and revision cases, respectively. Dr Schwarzkopf and colleagues explored the impact of time to revision arthroplasty on clinical outcomes. Analysis of 188 revision cases revealed early revisions (less than 2 years from primary) were associated with worse outcomes, longer hospitalizations and higher reoperation rates. Mid-term results for modular dual mobility implants in revision arthroplasty were reviewed by Dr Lachiewicz who reported on 126 hips at a mean 5.5 years. 11% of hips dislocated and the 6 year survival was 91%. An outer head diameter of 48mm or greater was associated with a lower risk of dislocation. Dr Berry concluded the session by discussing the outcomes of treating the challenging problem of interprosthetic femur fractures. A single-center study of 77 cases treated over 32 years demonstrated a 79% success rate free of reoperation at 2 years with 95% of patients being ambulatory. The second day commenced with the seventh session evaluating recent strategies to improve short-term THA outcomes. Dr Bozic and colleagues investigated the association of quality measure public reporting with hip/knee replacement outcomes. Annual trend data from 2010–2011 and 2016–2017 indicate that hospital-level complication and readmission rates decease after the start of public reporting, yet it is difficult to prove a direct effect. Dr Slover reviewed his institutions experience with the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model and emphasized that lower CJR target prices make it increasingly difficult for programs to meet target price thresholds. Cost saving strategies including same day discharge and reduction of home health services may result in smaller losses of positive margins. Dr Barsoum reported on the influence of patient and procedure-related risk factors of length of stay after THA. Patient-related risk factors provided substantial predictive value yet procedure-related risk factors (hospital site and surgical approach) remain the main drivers of predicting length of stay. Dr Hozack reviewed an impressive, single surgeon cohort of 3,977 DAA THAs and analyzed adverse events and 90 day perioperative outcomes. Simultaneous bilateral DAA THA was comparable with unilateral or staged bilateral procedures in regards to complications, readmission rate and home discharge rate but with an increased risk of transfusion. To examine the risk of complications with outpatient joint arthroplasty, Dr Della Valle performed a single-surgeon matched cohort analysis comparing outpatient and inpatient hip and knee arthroplasties. Outpatient procedures were not associated with an increased risk of any postoperative complications and actually experienced fewer emergency department visits. The eighth session covered various contemporary challenges in hip arthroplasty care. Dr Griffin began the session with an analysis of the timing of complications associated with two-stage exchange procedures for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Of the 189 hips included, 41.6% had a complication and the mortality was 14.1% at 2.5 years, highlighting the morbidity of this treatment method. Dr Fehring provided data assessing the fate of two-stage reimplantation after failed debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for a prosthetic hip infection. This analysis of 114 hips yielded concerning results demonstrating a 42.9% treatment failure of patients treated with a previous DAIR compared to a 12.3% failure rate in patients treated with an initial 2-stage procedure. Dr Jacobs reviewed the analysis of 106 femoral heads with severe corrosion and identified a chemically dominated etching process termed “column damage” to be a detrimental damage mode within CoCr femoral heads that is directly linked to banding within its microstructure. These data indicate that implant alloy microstructure must be optimized to minimize the release of fretting-corrosion products. Simon Mears presented retrospective data from 184 THAs with a dual modular femoral stem. A subgroup of hips with a modular, cobalt chromium femoral neck had a pseudotumor visualized in 15% with only 55% of these having elevated CoCr levels. These findings may support the use of routine follow-up MARS MRI for modular CoCr femoral neck prostheses. The final two studies explored timely issues related to viral illness and hip surgery. Dr Browne analyzed three large administrative databases to elucidate whether patients are at increased risk for viral illnesses following total joint replacement. The incidence of postoperative influenza after total joint replacement was not increased compared to patients not undergoing total joint replacement surgery suggesting that arthroplasty procedures may not heighten the risk of viral illness. In the final paper of the session Dr Haddad presented important data regarding perioperative complications in coronavirus positive patients undergoing surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures. In this multicenter cohort study from the United Kingdom 82 coronavirus positive patients were shown to have longer hospital stays, more critical care unit admissions, higher risk of perioperative complications and an increased mortality compared to 340 coronavirus negative patients. The eighth session had two papers on alternative femoral stem designs and three presentations more focused on femoral fracture treatments. Dr Mihalko focused on the European and US experiences with the Metha femoral neck retaining stem. The US experience mirrored the encouraging results from Europe with a 94% all cause femoral survivorship and a 99.1% femoral aseptic loosening survivorship at 5 years. Dr Kraay summarized dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) evaluation of 16 low modulus composite femoral components at long-term follow-up of a mean 22 years. The bone mineral density associated with the implant increased in Gruen zones 2–6 and showed limited decreases in zones 1 and 7. These data support the concept that a low modulus femoral stem may more effectively load the proximal femur. Dr Springer provided data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) and by evaluating outcomes of exact matched cohorts of 17,138 patients treated with cementless or cemented femoral implants for femoral neck fractures. Cemented implants were associated with marked reduction in early revision and periprosthetic fractures. However, cemented fixation was associated with an increased mortality at 90 days and 1 year. Additional data from the AJRR was presented by Dr Huddleston who investigated the risk factors for revision surgery after arthroplasty in a cohort of 75,333 femoral neck fractures. THA when compared to hemiarthroplasty was associated with higher early and overall revision rates. Cementless femoral fixation and increased age were also associated with higher rates of any revision. Both of these studies from the AJRR suggest that further consideration should be given to femoral fixation preferences in the femoral neck fracture population. Dr Vail summarized his institution's experience with an interdisciplinary hip fracture protocol for patients undergoing arthroplasty for acute femoral neck fractures. His study compared 157 cases prior to protocol implementation with 114 patients treated after the protocol was established. The impact of the interdisciplinary protocol was impressive as evidenced by a reduced time to operative treatment, length of stay, complication rate and one-year mortality. All being achieved without an increase in readmissions or facility discharges. The final session of the meeting addressed innovations in perioperative care of THA patients. Dr Barrack started the session with an interesting study examining the feasibility and patient preferences regarding telemedicine. A cross-sectional telephone survey of 163 arthroplasty patients indicated that 88% of patients use the internet and 94% own a device capable of videoconferencing. Nevertheless, only 18% of patients preferred a video visit over an in-person clinic visit due to concerns of inferior care. Dr Barnes quantified preoperative optimization work in 100 arthroplasty patients by using EMR activity logs and determined the surgical team spends an average 75 minutes per case on preoperative work activities. Dr Duwelius reported the early outcomes of primary THA with a smartphone-based exercise and educational platform compared to standard of care controls. A randomized control trial design with 365 patients demonstrated similar outcomes and non-inferiority of the smartphone platform relative to complications, readmissions, emergency room/urgent care visits. The association of controlled substance use with THA outcomes was assessed by Dr Higuera Rueda. A quantitative assessment using the NarxCare score identified 300 and above as a score associated with adverse outcomes after THA. Dr Macaulay reviewed data from a large retrospective study of 1,825 THAs indicating that discontinuation of intermittent pneumatic compression devices does not increase the risk of venous thromboembolism in standard risk patients being treated with 81mg ASA BID as prophylaxis. Dr Antoniou presented the final paper of the meeting investigating potential changes in patient health status as an indication for surgery over time. Data from this large systematic review of the literature found patients undergoing THA at similar health status to the past with no influence form patient age, gender, year of enrollment or geographic region. As summarized above, the 2020 virtual Hip Society Summer Meeting was rich in scientific content, productive discussion and a collaborative spirit. This collective body of work will result in impactful scientific contributions and will serve as a foundation for future innovation and advancements in the treatment of hip disease

Aims

This study aimed to explore whether intraoperative nerve monitoring can identify risk factors and reduce the incidence of nerve injury in patients with high-riding developmental dysplasia.

The main challenges in hip arthrodesis takedown include the decision to perform fusion takedown and the technical difficulties of doing so. In addition to the functional disadvantages of hip fusion, the long-term effects of hip arthrodesis include low back pain and in some cases ipsilateral knee pain. Indications for fusion conversion to THA include arthrodesis malposition, pseudoarthrosis, and ipsilateral knee, low back, contralateral hip problems, and functional disadvantages of ipsilateral hip fusion. When deciding whether or not to take down fusion, consider the severity of the current problem, risks of takedown and likely benefits of takedown. Best results of fusion takedown occur if abductor function is likely to be present. If the abductors are not likely to function well, dearthrodesis may still help, but the patient will have a profound Trendelenburg or Duchenne gait and risk of hip instability will be higher. Abductor assessment can be performed by determining if the abductors contract on physical exam and determining if the previous form of fusion spared the abductors and greater trochanter. EMG and MRI also can be performed to assess the abductors, but value in this setting is unproven. Before dearthrodesis establish realistic expectations: most patients will gain hip motion—but not normal motion, most will see improvement in back/knee pain, but many will become cane-dependent for life. The main technical issues to overcome involve exposure, femoral neck osteotomy, acetabular preparation, and femoral fixation. Exposure can be conventional posterior, anterolateral or direct anterior with an in-situ femoral neck cut. In complex cases, a transtrochanteric approach is often helpful. The in-situ neck cut is facilitated by fluoroscopy or intraoperative radiograph to make sure the cut is at the correct level and at the correct angle. Be careful not to angle into the pelvis with the cut. Acetabular preparation is more complex because anatomic landmarks often are absent or distorted. Try to find landmarks including ischium, ilium, teardrop, and fovea. Confirm location with fluoroscopy as reaming commences and during reaming. Depth of reaming can be improved by using the fovea (if present) and teardrop on fluoroscopy. Cup fixation is usually an uncemented cup, fixed with multiple screws because bone quality typically is compromised. Femoral fixation is at the surgeon's discretion, recognizing the proximal bone may be distorted in some cases. Postoperative management includes protected weight bearing as needed and heterotopic bone prophylaxis in selected patients

The main challenges in hip arthrodesis takedown include the decision to perform fusion takedown and the technical difficulties of doing so. In addition to the functional disadvantages of hip fusion, the long-term effects of hip arthrodesis include low back pain and in some cases ipsilateral knee pain. Indications for fusion conversion to THA include arthrodesis malposition, pseudoarthrosis, and ipsilateral knee, low back, contralateral hip problems, and functional disadvantages of ipsilateral hip fusion. When deciding whether or not to take down a fusion, consider the severity of the current problem, risks of takedown and likely benefits of takedown. Best results of fusion takedown occur if abductor function is likely to be present. If the abductors are not likely to function well, dearthrodesis may still help, but the patient will have a profound Trendelenburg or Duchenne gait and risk of hip instability will be higher. Abductor assessment can be performed by determining if the abductors contract on physical exam and determining if the previous form of fusion spared the abductors and greater trochanter. EMG and MRI also can be performed to assess the abductors, but value in this setting is unproven. Before dearthrodesis establish realistic expectations: most patients will gain hip motion—but not normal motion, most will see improvement in back/knee pain, but many will become cane-dependent for life. The main technical issues to overcome involve exposure, femoral neck osteotomy, acetabular preparation, and femoral fixation. Exposure can be conventional posterior, anterolateral or direct anterior with an in situ femoral neck cut. In complex cases, a transtrochanteric approach is often helpful. The in situ neck cut is facilitated by fluoroscopy or intra-operative radiograph to make sure the cut is at the correct level and at the correct angle. Be careful not to angle into the pelvis with the cut. Acetabular preparation is more complex because anatomic landmarks often are absent or distorted. Try to find landmarks including ischium, ilium, teardrop, and fovea. Confirm location with fluoroscopy as reaming commences and during reaming. Depth of reaming can be improved by using the fovea (if present) and teardrop on fluoroscopy. Cup fixation is usually an uncemented cup, fixed with multiple screws because bone quality typically is compromised. Femoral fixation is at the surgeon's discretion, recognizing the proximal bone may be distorted in some cases. Post-operative management includes protected weight bearing as needed and heterotopic bone prophylaxis in selected patients

Hip fusion is an uncommon procedure. Hip fusion takedown, therefore, is equally an uncommon procedure. What is of considerable interest is that the results, which I achieved in 20 cases in a paper published in 1987 are considerably superior to the results, which I am achieving today. This suggests that no simple case is now fused. It also equally suggests that there is little sense in looking at literature more than 10 or 15 years old on fusion takedowns as the two conditions are likely completely different. Most patients do not like a hip fusion. There are long-term problems with low back pain, ipsilateral global instability and contralateral patellofemoral osteoarthritis. A stiff hip produces a poor quality of life, especially in a tall person. The main problem in doing a hip fusion takedown is the condition of the abductors muscles. If fused before growth was complete, there may be pelvic hypoplasia. If the pelvis is small, the glutei will also be small. Sometimes, the glutei may have undergone fatty degeneration. This can be assessed by means of an MRI. If the abductors were damaged during fusion, a limp may persist. Other problems are that leg lengthening is difficult to achieve any longstanding hip fusion. Lengthening of 1–2 cm is usually about all that can safely be achieved. If the hip was fused in childhood, there is likely to be femoral hypoplasia. There is also likely absence of proximal cancellous bone and the proximal femur is a thin brittle cortical tube. The greater trochanter should not be detached as it is difficult to obtain union under such circumstances. The approach, which I prefer for a fusion takedown is an anterior Smith Peterson. The glutei are slid off the pelvis sidewall and then the upper part of the fusion can be exposed, blunt Hohmans can then be passed around the femoral neck prior to transection. Obviously, if any AO cobra plate has been used for a fusion, a trochanteric osteotomy may be required to preserve any glutei left. Old hardware can be removed either concurrently or as an interval procedure. In 1986, I published the results of 20 cases with a five to 40-year fusion time (mean 19). I used a variety of implants. Flexion was achieved to 90 degrees at 12 months in about 88% of people. Seventy-five percent ceased to limp by year one, although the elderly limp when tired. One patient was dissatisfied with the procedure. One was revised for pain. I have reviewed the cases done in the last 20 years. These were 28 cases, two bilateral. Seven were spontaneous fusions. Twenty-one were formal hip fusions. One was an AO fusion with a cobra plate. There were various intra-operative complications including two calcar cracks, which were wired, three femoral shaft fractures, which necessitated the use of long stems. There was one drop foot, which recovered. At review, a limp was absent in 20%, mild in 12% and severe, i.e. Trendelenburg positive in 68%. Harris hip scores were excellent in 28%, good in 32%, fair in 16% and poor in 24%. Four patients only, however, continued to use canes. The eventual range of movement was good. In 80%, more than 90 degrees of flexion was obtained, but it took up to two years to obtain maximum flexion. In 12%, the range of motion was poor at being 50 degrees to 85 degrees. The range of motion was poor, i.e. less than 45 degrees in one bilateral case of athrogryposis. This was a stiff arthrogrypotic. Further surgery is required in several cases. An ipsilateral total knee replacement and one a supracondylar femoral osteotomy. One cup loosened and was revised at seven years and one liner was exchanged at ten years

Aims

Posterior tilt of the pelvis with sitting provides biological acetabular opening. Our goal was to study the post-operative interaction of skeletal mobility and sagittal acetabular component position.

Patients with longstanding hip fusion are predisposed to symptomatic degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, ipsilateral knee and contralateral hip. In such patients, conversion of hip arthrodesis to hip replacement can provide relief of such symptoms. However, this is a technically demanding procedure associated with higher complication and failure rates than routine total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to determine the early functional results and complications in patients undergoing hip fusion conversion to total hip replacement, performed or supervised by a single surgeon, using a standardised approach and uncemented implants. We hypothesised that a satisfactory functional improvement can be achieved in following conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement. Eighteen hip fusions were converted to total hip replacements. A constrained acetabular liner was used in 3 hips. Mean follow up was 5 years (2 to 15 years). Two (11%) hips failed, requiring revision surgery and two patients (11%) had injury to the peroneal nerve. Heterotopic ossification developed in 7 (39%) hips, in one case resulting in joint ankylosis. No hips dislocated. Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function

Aims

We present a minimum 20-year follow-up study of 382 cemented Exeter Universal total hip arthroplasties (350 patients) operated on at a mean age of 66.3 years (17 to 94).

Aims

This study analysed the clinical and radiological outcome of anatomical reduction of a moderate or severe stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) treated by subcapital osteotomy (a modified Dunn osteotomy) through the surgical approach described by Ganz.

Introduction. Management of the sequelae of arthritis of the hip joint has changed over time. Total joint replacement has gained popularity due to retained mobility and stability. In the high demand paediatric and adolescent population problems are encountered with longevity of the procedure. Hip arthrodesis is a useful alternative procedure that sacrifices mobility of the joint to achieve pain relief and restores function. Several surgical techniques have been described to achieve hip fusion. We describe a technique that achieves concentric bone surfaces with hip resurfacing reamers. Maximum bone is preserved to maintain leg length. Trans-articular compression is achieved with cannulated screw fixation. Subtrochanteric de-functioning osteotomy completes the procedure to protect the fusion site and control the position of the limb. Our optimal position of fusion was 30 degrees of flexion, neutral to 5 degrees of abduction and neutral to 10 degrees of external rotation. Methods. Fourteen patients (8 female) treated by hip arthrodesis over a two-year period are reviewed in terms of clinical and radiological outcome in the short term. Their mean age at hip fusion was 11 years (6–18). The etiology included TB (6 cases), staphylococcal infection (2), non-specific arthritis (3), Perthe's (1), chondrolysis (1) and avascular necrosis following trauma (1). Results. Fusion was achieved in 12/14 patients. All patients in whom fusion was achieved had relief of pain and returned to their normal activities. Conclusion. We believe hip arthrodesis performed in the correct patient is a good procedure to preserve function and relieve pain. The procedure is technically demanding and careful follow-up to ensure optimal positioning and solid fusion is essential to ensure good results. NO DISCLOSURES

Hip fusion used to be a common procedure in children and young adults, but it is now exceedingly rare. My results of hip fusion takedown more than 20 years ago were quite acceptable. Of 20 cases, 88% achieved more than 90 degrees of flexion and 75% stopped limping by the end of one year. The elderly would revert to limping when tired. As no simple hips are currently fused, the results of hip fusion takedown in the last 20 years are very much inferior. Of 28 cases, limp is absent in 20%, mild in 12% and severe in 68%. Range of motion is acceptable with 80% eventually achieving more than 90 degrees of flexion. There are complications, but these are quite manageable. The aseptic loosening rate is small and the longevity is high. Current implants, therefore, can easily handle the hip fusion takedown. As the incidence of limp is prohibitively high, additional techniques to reinforce the hip abductors either concurrently or more likely as a secondary procedure as suggested by Whiteside should be learned by all those proposing to carry out hip fusion takedown

Hip arthrodesis remains a viable surgical technique in well selected patients, typically the young manual labourer with isolated unilateral hip disease. Despite this, its popularity with patients and surgeons has decreased due to the evolution of hip replacement, and is seldom chosen by young adult patients today. The surgeon is more likely to encounter a patient who requests conversion to total hip replacement (THR). The most common indications are a painful pseudarthrosis, back pain, ipsilateral knee pain or contralateral hip pain. Occasionally the patient will request conversion because of difficulty with activities of daily living, body image and perceived cosmesis. The technique of conversion and a discussion of the results are presented.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:114–19.

Indications for removal of well-fixed cementless femoral components include infection, improper femoral height/offset/anteversion, and fracture. More recently, removal of well-fixed but recalled femoral components that are associated with adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) has created a new indication for this procedure. The goal in all cases is to preserve bone stock and soft-tissue attachments to the greatest extent possible during implant removal. The strategy for implant removal depends to a large extent on the type of implant to be removed. Implants with limited proximal fixation can often be removed from the top using narrow osteotomes. Implants with more extensive fixation typically require more extensive exposure. When performing an extended trochanteric osteotomy, plan for the bone flap length based on measurement from the tip of the greater trochanter. Instead of devascularising the lateral bone flap, be sure to preserve the quadriceps attachment to the bone flap, exposing the lateral femur only where the transverse and posterior osteotomies are planned. The anterior osteotomy can be performed using a dotted line of osteotomes trans-muscularly as described by Heinz Wagner. Placement of a prophylactic cerclage below the osteotomy is prudent. Most importantly, if the need for a transfemoral exposure is likely, it should be performed primarily so that the posterior capsule and short rotators can be preserved. There is no need to perform a full posterior exposure and then to secondarily perform a transfemoral exposure since the former is unnecessary if the latter is performed. Discrete, limited fixation of the lateral bone flap proximally and distally should be performed to prevent strangulation of the living bone flap during the refixation process. The transfemoral technique can be applied not only to removal of well-fixed devices but also for conversion from hip fusion and for Z-shortening of the femur during Crowe 4 reconstruction instead of using a transverse osteotomy and intercalary shortening

Eighteen hip fusions were converted to total hip replacements. A constrained acetabular liner was used in three hips. Mean follow up was five years (two to 15). Two (11%) hips failed, requiring revision surgery and two patients (11%) had injury to the peroneal nerve. Heterotopic ossification developed in seven (39%) hips, in one case resulting in joint ankylosis. No hips dislocated. . Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotropic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine the functional outcome, imaging and complications of conversion of hip fusion to uncemented total hip replacement. Method. The study group comprised eighteen patients who had undergone conversion of unilateral hip fusion to total hip replacement between 1996 and 2007. There were five men and 13 women. The diagnosis prior to fusion was traumatic injury in eight patients, developmental dysplasia in three patients, and septic arthritis in seven patients. Four of the patient who had septic arthritis in childhood had spontaneous hips fusion while the other underwent surgical arthrodesis. The mean age at the time of conversion was 53 years (range, 21–77) and the mean time between fusion and conversion to hip replacement was 33 years (range, 11–60). Mean follow up was five years (range 2–15 years). Data was collected by retrospective review of a prospective database. Uncemented acetabular components were used in all cases and uncemented femoral components were used in all but two patients. In three patients with abductor and soft tissue deficiency an intraoperative decision was made to use a constrained acetabular liner. Results. The Harris hip score increased from a mean of 49 pre operatively to 75 at a mean of five years p<0.001. There was poor correlation between patient age, duration of hip fusion and hip scores at six months, 12 months and at final follow-up at a mean of five years. Heterotopic ossification developed in seven of the 18 (39%) patients. It was grade one in four patients, grade two in one patient, grade three in one patient and grade four in one patient. Four complications occurred in four of the 18 (22%) patients. Two patients (11%) had neurological injury in the common peroneal nerve distribution. In one patient heterotopic ossification resulted in joint ankylosis. This patient underwent reoperation to excise the heterotopic ossification 16 months after the initial hip replacement procedure. One patient developed a deep venous thrombosis. There were no hip dislocations. One acetabular component was loose and had migrated at 15 years follow up. Conclusion. Conversion of hip fusion to hip replacement carries an increased risk of heterotopic ossification and neurological injury. We advise prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification. When there is concern about hip stability we suggest that the use of a constrained acetabular liner is considered. Despite the potential for complications, this procedure had a high success rate and was effective in restoring hip function