The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

Cementless stem designs in total hip arthroplasty differ in relation to geometry and area of fixation. We utilised radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to evaluate the 2-year migration of a novel, short, proximally coated femoral stem. 30 participants undergoing primary total hip replacement for any cause (rheumatoid or inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis) were prospectively recruited in this study. Osteoporotic patients and cases of suspected infection were excluded. All patients received a short blade stem, proximally coated with a reduced lateral shoulder and narrow triple taper geometry to minimise bone removal. RSA radiographs were performed post-operatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1- and 2 years. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and EQ-5D were collected at baseline and at 2 years post-operatively. The stability of implants and complications were captured during each follow-up visit. A total of 14 female and 16 male patients were recruited with a mean age of 64.8 (range 47 to 75). At two years the mean subsidence of the stem was 0.34 mm (SD 0.62) and the total migration 0.74 mm (SD 0.60). The mean medial translation at two years was 0.059 (0.24) and the mean anterior translation 0.12 (0.59) respectively. Baseline PROM scores improved significantly at 2-years from pre-operatively (median and interquartile range): HHS from 33 (18.25) to 92 (19), EQ5D from 0.5 (0.35) to 0.94 (0.17), OHS from 21 (18.25) to 42 (4.25). P-value for all comparisons was <0.001. 2-year follow up data revealed no complications. There were no stem revisions in study participants and no heterotopic ossifications were identified on radiographs. 2-year migration results of a cementless, short blade, proximally coated tapered femoral stem using RSA, showed the stem exhibits a predictable migration pattern and achieves initial stability. This is highly likely to translate to mid and long-term stability, which needs to be corroborated by long-term outcome studies. Furthermore, participants demonstrated excellent clinical, patient reported and radiological outcomes after 2 years of follow up to support expansion in the use of this prosthesis

Aims

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique.

Aims

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the early migration of the TriFit cementless proximally coated tapered femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Objectives

Modern metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), while achieving good results with well-orientated, well-designed components in ideal patients, is contraindicated in women, men with head size under 50 mm, or metal hypersensitivity. These patients currently have no access to the benefits of HRA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) has demonstrated clinical success in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, when used in HRA, potentially reduces metal ion-related sequelae. We report the early performance of HRA using a direct-to-bone cementless mono-bloc XLPE component coupled with a cobalt-chrome femoral head, in the patient group for whom HRA is currently contraindicated.

Cementless femoral stems are currently preferred for total hip replacement (THR) in the United States. Improvements in stem design, instrumentation and surgical technique have made this technology highly successful, reproducible, and applicable to the vast majority of patients requiring a THR. However, there are ongoing developments in some aspects of stem design that influence clinical results, the incidence of complications and their inherent adaptability in accommodating the needs of individual patients. Here we examine some of these design features.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:53–6.

Objectives

To quantify and compare peri-acetabular bone mineral density (BMD) between a monoblock acetabular component using a metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing and a modular titanium shell with a polyethylene (PE) insert. The secondary outcome was to measure patient-reported clinical function.

We reviewed 44 consecutive revision hip replacements in 38 patients performed using the cement-in-cement technique. All were performed for acetabular loosening in the presence of a well-fixed femoral component. The mean follow-up was 5.1 years (2 to 10.1). Radiological analysis at final follow-up indicated no loosening of the femoral component, except for one case with a continuous radiolucent line in all zones and peri-prosthetic fracture which required further revision. Peri-operative complications included nine proximal femoral fractures (20.4%) and perforation of the proximal femur in one hip. In five hips wiring or fixation with a braided suture was undertaken but no additional augmentation was required. There was an improvement in the mean Japanese Orthopaedic Association score from 55.5 (28 to 81) pre-operatively to 77.8 (40 to 95) at final follow-up (p < 0.001). Revision using a cement-in-cement technique allows increased exposure for acetabular revision and is effective in the medium term. Further follow-up is required to assess the long-term results in the light of in vitro studies which have questioned the quality of the cement-in-cement bond.