This study compared the pullout forces of the initial implantation and the “cement-in-cement” revision technique for short and standard-length (125 mm vs. 150 mm) Exeter. ®. V40 femoral stems used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The idea that the pullout force for a double taper slip stem is relative to the force applied to the femur and that “cement-in-cement” revision provides the same reproduction of force. A total sample size of 15 femoral stems were tested (Short, n = 6 and Standard, n = 9). 3D printed fixtures for repeatable sample preparation were used to minimize variance during testing. To promote stem subsidence and to simulate an in vivo environment, the samples were placed in an incubator at 37°C at 100% humidity and experienced a constant compressive loading of 1335 N for 14 days. The samples underwent a displacement-controlled pullout test. After the initial pullout test, “cement-in-cement” revision will be performed and tested similar to the initial implantation to observe the efficacy of the revision technique. To compare the pullout forces between the two groups, a Kruskal-Wallis test using a significance level of 0.05 was conducted. The mean maximum pullout force for the short and standard-length femoral stems were 3939 ± 1178 N and 5078 ± 1168 N, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test determined no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the initial implantation (p = 0.13). The “cement-in-cement” revision pullout force will be conducted in future testing. This study demonstrated the potential use of short stem designs for THA as it provides similar levels of fixation as the standard-length femoral stem. The potential benefits for using a short stem design would be providing similar load transfer to the proximal femur, preserving proximal metaphyseal femoral bone in primary replacement, and reducing the invasiveness during revision

In recent years the majority of X-ray departments have moved to a digital format of recording and archiving radiographs. These digital images (as with previous ‘films’) have a built in magnification factor (variable with each patient), which, may cause errors in templating for joint replacement surgery. Placing a marker of known size at the same level as the joint in question allows calculation of the magnification. This may help to restore hip offset in total hip replacement. To establish the magnification factor for digital radiographs taken in our unit. To assess the usefulness of marker images in accurate preoperative templating. Preoperative marker radiographs were identified retrospectively. The apparent size of the marker was measured on digital image. This value was used to calculate the magnification of the image. The scaled X-ray was up loaded to a digital templating software programme. This software uses a ‘scaling tool’ to calculate the magnification of the image. The hip joint templating tool was the used to calculate the offset of the proximal femur, this was performed with the calculated magnification and also an assumed magnification of 120%. The recommended offset of Exeter V40 stem was noted for both values. Images were identified for 40 patients with markers. The average magnification was 122% for both PACS and Orthoview with a range 113% – 129% and a standard deviation of 4%. The median value for magnification was 120%. The average change in offset between calculated and estimated magnification was 1.275mm with a maximum change of 3mm. In two cases this difference resulted in a change in the recommended offset (5%). The use of marker radiographs is widely described. In this small series the magnification is the same as previously reported in other studies. The difference in offset between calculated and estimated magnification was relatively small and caused a change in the recommended offset in only two patients. Variation in the use of the templating tool in our software can produce a much greater change in offset. Marker radiographs will only be useful as part of a standardised method of pre-operative templating