Aims. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain. Materials and Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining. Results. Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘hip first’; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘spine first’; p = 0.006). Conclusion. In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of ‘hip or spinal surgery first’ elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons’ decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37–44

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first. Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the NA Hip Society requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first; the rationale for the decision with comments, and the type of THA prosthesis if “THA first” was chosen. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining. Complete responses were received from 51 members (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (± 10.4) years of practice experience. The percentages of surgeons recommending “THA first” were 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ. 2. =44.5, p<0.001). Surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. For type of THA prosthesis, dual mobility component was chosen by: 12% in scenario 1; 16% in scenario 2; 8% in scenario 3; 24% in scenario 4; and 10% in scenario 5. Surgeons were more likely to choose dual mobility in scenario 4, but with the numbers available this was not statistically significant (χ. 2. =6.6, p=0.16). The analysis of comments suggested the importance of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy. With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial even for a group of experienced hip surgeons. Outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making

Purpose. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first, and does the surgeon's area of expertise influence the choice. Materials & Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the Hip Society and 101 experienced spine surgeons in the USA requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first, and the rationale for the decision with comments. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining. Results. Complete responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (+ 10.4) years of practice experience, and 37 spine surgeons (37%), with a mean of 23.4 (+ 6.5) years of experience. The percentages of hip surgeons recommending “THA first” differ significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ. 2. =44.5, p<0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending “THA first” were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the surgeon groups only for scenarios 3 and 4 (Fishers exact test, p=0.003 and p=0.006 respectively). Hip surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. Spine surgeons were more likely to recommend THA first with back pain caused by spinal deformity, and spine surgery first with lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness. Surgeon comments suggested the utility of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, leg weakness as an indication for spine surgery, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy. Conclusion. With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial in certain clinical scenarios, even for experienced hip and spine surgeons. Additional outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making

Total hip replacement (THR) is a very common procedure undertaken in up to 285 000 Americans each year. Patient satisfaction with THR is very high, with improvements in general health, quality of life, and function while at the same time very cost effective. Although the majority of patients have a high degree of satisfaction with their THR, 27% experience some discomfort, and up to 6% experience severe chronic pain. Although it can be difficult to diagnose the cause of the pain in these patients, this clinical issue should be approached systematically and thoroughly. A detailed history and clinical examination can often provide the correct diagnosis and guide the appropriate selection of investigations, which will then serve to confirm the clinical diagnosis made.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:70–3.

Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and often lead to revision. Our aim was to determine the severity of this complication by assessing the outcome of revision in these circumstances and by comparing this with the outcome of other metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revisions as well as that of matched primary total hip replacements.

We identified 53 hips which had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and required revision at a mean of 1.59 years (0.01 to 6.69) after operation. Of these, 16 were revised for pseudotumours, 21 for fracture and 16 for other reasons. These were matched by age, gender and diagnosis with 103 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement with the Exeter implant.

At a mean follow-up of three years (0.8 to 7.2) the outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision for pseudotumour was poor with a mean Oxford hip score of 20.9 (sd 9.3) and was significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome for fracture with a mean Oxford hip score of 40.2 (sd 9.2) or that for other causes with a mean Oxford hip score of 37.8 (sd 9.4). The clinical outcome of revision for pseudotumour was also significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome of matched primary total hip replacements. By contrast, the outcome for fracture and other causes was not significantly different from that of matched primary total hip replacements (p = 0.065). After revision for pseudotumour there were three cases of recurrent dislocation, three of palsy of the femoral nerve, one of stenosis of the femoral artery and two of loosening of the component. Five hips required further revision. In three of these there was evidence of recurrent pseudotumour, and one is currently awaiting further revision. The incidence of major complications after revision for pseudotumour (50%) was significantly higher (p = 0.018) than that after revision for other causes (14%).

The outcome of revision for pseudotumour is poor and consideration should be given to early revision to limit the extent of the soft-tissue destruction. The outcome of resurfacing revision for other causes is good.