Introduction

Stem revision with retention of the old cement mantle (cement-in-cement revision) in cases with an intact cement/bone interface is an appealing option. There has been an increasing use of this technique. In 2014 this cement-in- cement technique was used in 10% of all stem revisions reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). We analysed the outcome of cement-in-cement stem revisions reported to the SHAR during years 2001–2014

Introduction

Dislocation as a primary cause of revision has been on the increase in Sweden (14% in 2014). The increasing use of Dual Mobility cups (DMC) could well be explained by the increased revision burden due to dislocation, patients undergoing revision having increased comorbidities and reports that dual articular cup designs reduce the risk of dislocation. The aim of this study was to analyze the change in utilization pattern of the dual articular designs used in acetabular revision surgery in Sweden. The short-term survival of DMC was compared to traditional designs.

In this study we hypothesised that anxiety/depression, one of five dimensions in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement tool EQ-5D, could predict outcome after total hip replacement surgery.

Pre-operative and one-year post-operative data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, including 6158 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip, were analysed. In order to examine the association between anxiety and outcome with respect to pain and satisfaction an analysis of covariance was used.

The pre-operative EQ-5D anxiety/depression dimension was a strong predictor for pain relief and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001).

Orthopaedic surgeons involved in the care of patients eligible for total hip replacement surgery should be aware that mental health may influence post-operative pain and HRQoL. An appropriate assessment of mental health may enable a modification in the way these patients are managed in order to optimise the outcome after joint replacement surgery.

Periprosthetic fracture of the femur is an uncommon complication after total hip replacement, but appears to be increasing. We undertook a nationwide observational study to determine the risk factors for failure after treatment of these fractures, examining patient- and implant-related factors, the classification of the fractures and the outcome.

Between 1979 and 2000, 1049 periprosthetic fractures of the femur were reported to the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 245 had a further operation after failure of their initial management. Data were collected from the Register and hospital records. The material was analysed by the use of Poisson regression models.

It was found that the risk of failure of treatment was reduced for Vancouver type B2 injuries (p = 0.0053) if revision of the implant was undertaken (p = 0.0033) or revision and open reduction and internal fixation (p = 0.0039) were performed. Fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 had a significantly higher risk of failure (p = 0.0001). The strongest negative factor was the use of a single plate for fixation (p = 0.001). The most common reasons for failure in this group were loosening of the femoral prosthesis, nonunion and re-fracture.

It is probable that many fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 (n = 304), were in reality type B2 fractures with a loose stem which were not recognised. Plate fixation was inadequate in these cases. The difficulty in separating type B1 from type B2 fractures suggests that the prosthesis should be considered as loose until proven otherwise.

We assessed 100 patients with a primary total hip replacement using the Harris hip score and the Nottingham Health Profile at one, three and five years after operation. They were derived from two prospective randomised series of cemented and uncemented replacements.

Both scoring systems correlated highly and were each heavily influenced by the system of functional classification defined by Charnley. After five years both reflected the function of the implant and the general state of the patient. A higher degree of sensitivity is needed to show differences in the performance of an implant in the short and medium term. We do not yet have an ideal system of clinical assessment and the overall function must always be properly assessed.

We enrolled 98 patients (107 hips) with a mean age of 47 years (SD 8.6) into a prospective study of the Madreporic Lord THR; 34 hips had primary and 73 secondary osteoarthritis.

After ten years, the survival rate using revision as the endpoint for failure was 70% (±9) for the cup and 98% (±0.3) for the stem. The combined clinical and radiological survival rates were 46% (±11) and 81% (±10), respectively. Osteoporosis due to stress-shielding was observed in the proximal femur. Hips with radiologically dense bone postoperatively showed the most pronounced bone loss.

We recommend continued radiological follow-up of patients with this type of implant to allow revision to be performed before there is severe bony destruction of the pelvis.