Introduction: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) is the most commonly used hip resurfacing for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. The goal of this study was to evaluate how the surgeon could influence the biomechanical features of the navigated and non-navigated resurfaced proximal femur. METHODS 20 Cadaver hips were resurfaced with a BHR using femoral navigation. The native anteversion and neck shaft angle as indicated by the navigation system were used as a reference. The non-navigated femoral component jig was first placed in the “ideal” position aiming for 10° of valgus and neutral anteversion. The jig was then displaced 5mm in 4 directions. The anteversion and stem shaft angle (SSA) angle were measured for each position using the navigation system. A scaled XR was taken pre- and post-operatively. For statistical analysis, the paired Student’s T-test with a confidence interval of 95% and a significant p-value of p< 0.05 was used.

Results: The centre of rotation (COR) of the navigated resurfaced femur was 3,5 mm significantly (p=0,0006) more distal in the femoral neck than the native COR. This resulted in a 2.1 mm vertical caudal drop (vertical offset) and an average 2.7 mm lateral displacement of the COR (horizontal offset). The same measurements were done with 5° increments of the SSA from 120° to 140°. The vertical offset loss increased non-significantly (1.7 to 2.6 mm). The horizontal offset loss decreased non-significantly (3 to 2.2 mm). The native vertical and horizontal offset could be restored if 5 mm less bone was taken off the femur. The offset loss was significantly increased if 5 mm more bone than the normal reaming had been taken off (p< 0.0001). The “ideal” jig position on the lateral femoral cortex led to an average 137° SSA. Five millimetres of jig displacement on the lateral cortex in either direction did not lead to significant changes in the SSA or anteversion angles relative to the “ideal” position (all p> 0,13). Five millimetres of posterior displacement resulted in an average 139° SSA and 5,8° of anteversion in 95% of hips.

Conclusion: Surgical interventions can significantly change the biomechanics of the hip. Increasing the SSA with a fixed femoral head entry point, as often is done with navigation, does not significantly change the femoral offset. If the surgeon decides to take less bone off the femur, then the offset could be restored and even increased to 1 mm more than the native femur. If due to pathologic changes the bone loss would be increased to 5mm more than the “normal” bone loss, a significant offset loss of > 5 mm could be expected which might lead to detrimental biomechanical effects. The positioning of the jig is subject to surgical errors. The effect of a 5 mm error in either direction does not lead to significant changes in anteversion or SSA. Posterior displacement led to the most reproducible component positioning.

The use of plate-and-cable constructs to treat periprosthetic fractures around a well-fixed femoral component in total hip replacements has been reported to have high rates of failure. Our aim was to evaluate the results of a surgical treatment algorithm to use these lateral constructs reliably in Vancouver type-B1 and type-C fractures. The joint was dislocated and the stability of the femoral component was meticulously evaluated in 45 type-B1 fractures. This led to the identification of nine (20%) unstable components. The fracture was considered to be suitable for single plate-and-cable fixation by a direct reduction technique if the integrity of the medial cortex could be restored.

Union was achieved in 29 of 30 fractures (97%) at a mean of 6.4 months (3 to 30) in 29 type-B1 and five type-C fractures. Three patients developed an infection and one construct failed.

Using this algorithm plate-and-cable constructs can be used safely, but indirect reduction with minimal soft-tissue damage could lead to shorter times to union and lower rates of complications.