Previous scientific studies have highlighted how coupling is an important element affecting total hip arthroplasty's survival. This study aims to evaluate whether metal-on-metal (MOM) coupling could be a statistically significant risk factor. The data from the regional joint registry (Registro dell'Impiantologia Protesica Ortopedica, RIPO) was used for analysis. The data collection accuracy of this registry was 97.2% in 2017. We retrospective evaluate all MOM total hip arthroplasties (THAs) implanted in our department between January 01st 2000 and December 31st 2011. We used a control group composed by all other prosthesis implanted in our Department in the same time lapse. We registered 660 MOM THAs. Mean age of patients was 66.9 years. 603 patients have a >36mm head, while 78 a <36 mm one. Neck modularity was present in half of patients. 676 implants were cementless. We registered 69 revisions, especially due to aseptic mobilization (16 THAs), implant breakage (9 THAs) and periprosthetic fracture (6 THAs). The MOM THAs overall Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 87.2 at 15 years, and the difference between MOM THAs and other implants two curves is statistically significant (p<0.05). Male sex is a significant risk factors. Further evaluations are in progress to establish the presence of any additional risk factors. We think weight and/or BMI may be included in this category. Our study confirms the data currently present in the literature regarding a lower survival of metal-on-metal hip prostheses. The male sex is a statistically significant risk factor (p<0.05), while age, head size and modularity of the prosthetic neck are not statistically significant (p>0.05). Any new finds will be presented at the congress venue

Abstract. Objectives. Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre. Methods. A retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method. Results. 10,104 primary THRs were included; median age 68.6 years with 61.5% females. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28 mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32 mm heads and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36 mm heads. Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36mm group (2.7% vs. 1.3% vs. 1.1%). Cox regression analysis showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32mm & 36mm head sizes as compared to 28mm; this was statistically significant for the 32mm group (p = 0.01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32mm (p = 0.03) and 36mm (p = 0.03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes. Conclusion. There was a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes (36mm & 32mm vs. 28mm). Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with a mean of 6.0-year follow-up. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

The aim of this study was to report the procedure survival and patient-reported outcomes in a consecutive series of patients <50yrs at the time of hip arthroplasty with a metal-on-metal hip resurfacing system who have progressed to a minimum of 10yrs follow-up. Patients presenting for treatment of degenerative conditions of the hip electing to undergo hip resurfacing were included in a clinical registry (N=226 patients; 238 procedures). Procedure survival was confirmed by crosschecking to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and comparing to all procedures by other surgeons nationwide. Kaplan-meier survival curves with 95% confidence intervals were constructed, while patient-reported outcome measures were compared with t-tests and postoperative scores assessed with anchor analysis to age and gender-matched normative data. At mean follow up of 12 years, six cases were revised with a cumulative survival rate of 96.8% (95%CI 94.2–99.4) at 15 years. Majority of revisions were early (<3yrs) and occurred in females (N=4). Patient-reported general health, disease state, hip function and activity level maintained large improvements beyond 10 years post-implantation and were equal to or exceeded age and gender-matched normative data. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in males and females aged <50 years at time of surgery demonstrated a high rate of cumulative survival beyond 10 years follow up. The results demonstrate excellent outcomes in this age group

Background and aims. Hallux rigidus in the metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) can be treated with arthroplasty to reduce pain and enhance motion. Few studies have investigated the functionality and the survival of HemiCap arthroplasty. Primarily we aimed to examine the medium to long-term functionality and the degree of pain after surgery. Secondarily the failure and revision rate of HemiCap implants. Methods. A total of 106 patients were operated with HemiCap arthroplasty (n=114) from 2006 to 2014, median age 53 (16 to 80) years, 78 females, 37 dorsal flange (DF) implants. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively to collect revision data. Pre operative Coughlin/Shurnas arthrosis degree, hallux valgus (HV), intermetatarsalintermetatarsal (IM) and Distal Metaphyseal Articular Angle (DMAA) angles was were measured. Pre- and post operative 3 weeks, 6 months, 1 and 2 year2-year pain levels of the first MTPJ by Visuel Analog Skala (VAS 1–10), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS 0 to 100 points) and, Range of Motion (ROM), were available for 51 patients. FortysevenForty-seven of the 70 available for reexamination partook in a cross sectional follow up where the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS 0–48 points) was added to the Patients Related Outcome Measures (PROMs). Statistics. Kaplan-Meier for survival analysis, adjusted for sex, radiological angles, degree of arthrosis and dorsal flange. Prospective PROMs and ROM compared by paired t-test. Results. At 3, 5 and 7 years we had an mean implant survival of 85%, 83% and 78%. Almost all were revised due to pain, one due to malalignment and one due to loosening of the Hemicap. Dorsal flange, gender, preoperative arthrosis degree, HV, IM or DMAA angles did not statistically influence the result. For those (n=23) that were re-examined, preoperative dorsal ROM changed from mean(sd) 21 (6) to 42 (18) degrees, VAS from 7 (2) to 2 (2) and AOFAS from 61 (11) to 87 (11) (p < 0.001). At mean 5 year follow up (n=47), mean (sd) dorsal ROM was 46 (17) degrees,. AOFAS was 84 (9), VAS 2 (1) and SEFAS 42 (6) points. The dorsal flange made no statistical significant difference for ROM or PROMs, but DF displayed 51 degrees of extension vs. 44 without (p=0.1). Periprostethic lucency (<2 mm) was observed in 27/47. Conclusions. In general, we saw an acceptable implant survival rate. We did not find any predictors that influenced implant failure and the design alterations with the dorsal flange are not evident clinically. Patients who were not revised had significantly less pain, greater ROM, and better overall foot and ankle conditions than preoperatively, but the data are biased by missing numbers and revisions