250 words max Long polished cemented femoral stems, such as the Exeter Hip Revision stem, are one option available to the revision hip arthroplasty surgeon. When proximal bone stock is compromised, distal fixation is often relied upon for stability of the femoral component. In such circumstances, torsional forces can result in debonding and loosening. This study compared the torsional behaviour of a cemented polished and featureless (plain) stem with cemented, polished stems featuring fins or flutes. Nine torsional tests were carried out on each of these three different stem designs. The finned stem construct was significantly stiffer than the fluted stem (mean 24.5 Nm/deg v 17.5 Nm/deg). The plain stem mean stiffness was less than the featured stems (13 Nm/deg), but wide variability lead to no statistically significant difference. The maximum torque of the finned (30.5 Nm) and fluted stems (29 Nm) was significantly higher than the plain stem (10.5 Nm); with no significance to the difference between the finned and fluted stems. Distal stem features may provide a more reliable and greater resistance to torque in polished, cemented revision hip stems. Finned stem features may also increase the stiffness of the construct. Consideration should thus be given to the incorporation of distal stem features in the design of revision hip stems.

We have tested the axial and torsional stability of femoral components after revision arthroplasty in a cadaver model, using impacted morsellised cancellous graft and cement. Each one of six matched pairs of fresh frozen human femora had either a primary or a revision prosthesis cemented in place. For the ‘revision’ experiments, all cancellous bone was removed from the proximal femur which was then over-reamed to create a smooth-walled cortical shell. An MTS servohydraulic test frame was used to apply axial and torsional loads to each specimen through the prosthetic femoral heads with the femur submerged in isotonic saline solution at 37°C.

The mean subsidence was 0.27 ± 0.17 mm for the primary and 0.52 ± 0.30 mm for the revision groups. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.025), but the mean subsidence was < 1 mm in both groups. The mean maximum torque before failure was 42.9 ± 26.9 N-m for the primary and 34.8± 20.7 N-m for the revision groups. This difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.015).

Based on our results we suggest that revision of the femoral component using morsellised cancellous graft followed by cementing with a collarless prosthesis with a polished tapered stem restores the integrity of the proximal femur and provides immediate stability of the implant.

Intraoperative fractures although rare are one of the complications known to occur while performing a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, due to lower incidence rates there is currently a gap in this area of literature that systematically reviews this important issue of complications associated with THA. Method: We looked into Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the archives of meetings of orthopaedic associations and the bibliographies of included articles and asked experts to identify prospective studies, published in any language that evaluated intra-operative fractures occurring during total hip arthroplasty from the year 1950-2020. The screening, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two researchers and if there was any discrepancy, a third reviewer was involved. Fourteen studies were identified. The reported range of occurrence of fracture while performing hip replacement surgery was found to be 0.4-7.6%. Major risk factors identified were surgical approaches, Elderly age, less Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index score, change in resistance while insertion of the femur implants, inexperienced surgeons, uncemented femoral components, use of monoblock elliptical components, implantation of the acetabular components, patients with ankylosing spondylitis, female gender, uncemented stems in patients with abnormal proximal femoral anatomy and with cortices, different stem designs, heterogeneous fracture patterns and toothed design. Intraoperative fractures during THA were managed with cerclage wire, femoral revision, intramedullary nail and cerclage wires, use of internal fixation plates and screws for management of intra operative femur and acetabular fractures. The main reason for intraoperative fracture was found to be usage of cementless implants but planning and timely recognition of risk factors and evaluating them is important in management of intraoperative fractures. Adequate surgical site exposure is critical especially during dislocation of hip, reaming of acetabulum, impaction of implant and preparing the femoral canal for stem insertion. Eccentric and increased reaming of acetabulum to accommodate a larger cup is to be avoided, especially in females and elderly patients as the acetabulum is thinner. However, this area requires more research in order to obtain more evidence on effectiveness, safety and management of intraoperative fractures during THA

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents with increasing challenges, potentially compromising the integrity of a revision. The objective of this study was to assess radiologic outcomes of patients who underwent revision THA with a modular tapered stem (Reclaim, DePuy Synthes). This study retrospectively examined all revision Reclaim THAs between 2012 and 2016. Radiologic assessment compared x-rays at two time points: immediately after surgery and the most recent x-ray available. Leg length discrepancy, subsidence and line-to-line fit was assessed. Significant subsidence was considered ≥10mm. Adequate line-to-line fit was considered ≥30mm of bicortical contact. Descriptive statistics included clinical factors (i.e. age, Paprosky classification). P values <0.05 were considered significant. A total of 81 femoral revisions were completed. There were 42 females and 38 males with a mean age of 71 years (range, 46–89). Of these, 6 were revised (dislocation, fracture or infection), and 7 were lost to follow up. Average follow up time was 18 months (range, 1–46 months). Femoral revisions were classified as Paprosky 3a or 3b. Mean stem subsidence was 4.15mm (range, 0–25.6mm). Subsidence of the femoral stem was <10mm in 88% of patients. A total of 62% of patients had both subsidence <10mm and ≥30mm of bicortical contact. In patients with <10mm subsidence, 70% had ≥30mm of bicortical contact. There was a positive trend between cortical contact and stem stability (OR 2.3). The Reclaim modular femoral system has demonstrated radiographic stability. Inadequate initial fit is a potential determinant of subsidence

Background. Hip resurfacing has resurged in the last decade due to a renewed interest in metal on metal bearing. One of the proposed advantages is ease of revision of the femoral component. Short term functional results after femoral revision are similar to those after conventional total hip replacement. Survival and function after revision of the acetabular component only or of both components have not been reported. We aimed to assess hip function and implant survival after revision of the acetabular component for failed Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR). Methods. The Oswestry Outcome Centre collected data prospectively on 5000 patients who underwent hip resurfacing between 1997 and 2002. Of these, 182 hips were revised: 42% had revision of the femoral component only, 8% revision of the acetabular component only, and 50% revision of both components. This study analyzed patients who had revision of the acetabular component, either in isolation or in combination with the femoral component. Results. In the isolated acetabular revision group the median Harris Hip Score was 74 at a mean of 4.5 years post-revision. In the both components revision group the median Harris hip score was 85 at a mean of 4 years. There was no significant difference in function between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survivor ship analysis after revision showed an average survival of 91% at 10 years. There was a significant difference between survival of isolated acetabular revision (75%) and both component revision (96%). Conclusions. Revision total hip replacement subsequent to failure of hip resurfacing has good outcome and good midterm survival. Isolated acetabular revision and revision of both components had similar function but survival was significantly worse in the isolated acetabular revision group

We performed 83 consecutive cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in 77 patients between 1977 and 1983 using improved cementing techniques. One patient (two hips) was lost to follow-up. The remaining 76 patients (81 hips) had an average age at revision of 63.7 years (23 to 89). At the final follow-up 18 hips (22%) had had a reoperation, two (2.5%) for sepsis, three (4%) for dislocation and 13 (16%) for aseptic loosening. The incidence of rerevision for aseptic femoral loosening was 5.4% and for aseptic acetabular loosening 16%. These results confirm that cemented femoral revision is a durable option in revision hip surgery when improved cementing techniques are used, but that cemented acetabular revision is unsatisfactory

Dislocation remains a major concern after total hip replacement, and is often attributed to malposition of the components. The optimum position for placement of the components remains uncertain. We have attempted to identify a relatively safe zone in which movement of the hip will occur without impingement, even if one component is positioned incorrectly. A three-dimensional computer model was designed to simulate impingement and used to examine 125 combinations of positioning of the components in order to allow maximum movement without impingement. Increase in acetabular and/or femoral anteversion allowed greater internal rotation before impingement occurred, but decreases the amount of external rotation. A decrease in abduction of the acetabular components increased internal rotation while decreasing external rotation. Although some correction for malposition was allowable on the opposite side of the joint, extreme degrees could not be corrected because of bony impingement.

We introduce the concept of combined component position, in which anteversion and abduction of the acetabular component, along with femoral anteversion, are all defined as critical elements for stability.