Introduction. The mortality and serious side effects risk of both medical and surgical management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been widely published. To date however, there are no studies comparing safety between the two treatment modalities. We aimed to systematically review the published evidence on the mortality and serious complications risk of the various treatments for hip and knee OA. Methods. We searched for studies investigating the safety of arthroplasty, arthroscopy, opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and paracetamol using PubMed, Score, Cochrane, PEDRO, and Google Scholar. The phrase “osteoarthritis treatment” was searched and then combined using Boolean connectors (“OR and “AND) with “serious complications” or “serious adverse events” or “mortality”. The quality of included studies was assessed based on the approach used by the AAOS in judging the quality of treatment studies. Results. 19 studies were included in the review. Mortality risk was highest for Naproxen HR = 3 (1.9; 4.6) and lowest for total hip replacement RR = 0.7 (0.7; 0.7). Highest serious gastrointestinal complication risk was reported for diclofenac OR = 4.77 (3.94; 5.76) and lowest for total knee replacement HR = 0.6 (0.49; 0.75). Ibuprofen had the highest renal complications risk OR=2.32 (1.45; 3.71) whereas celecoxib had the lowest RR = 0.61 (0.4; 0.94). Celecoxib users had the highest cardiovascular (CV) complication risk OR=2.26 (1; 5.1) and the lowest was for tramadol RR = 1.1 (0.87; 1.4). Discussion. Long term medical management of hip and knee OA particularly with NSAIDS may carry a higher mortality risk compared to surgery. Conclusion. The practitioner and patient should carefully consider the risks of medications as well as surgery prior to commencing treatment. Treatment choice should also be tailored to the patient taking into account known GI, CVS, and renal co-morbidities

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of non-selective and selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing heterotopic ossification (HO) after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

We aimed to assess the influence of ethnicity on the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Over recent years hip arthroscopic surgery has evolved into one of the most rapidly expanding fields in orthopaedic surgery. Complications are largely transient and incidences between 0.5% and 6.4% have been reported. However, major complications can and do occur. This article analyses the reported complications and makes recommendations based on the literature review and personal experience on how to minimise them.

Degenerative problems of the hip in patients with childhood and adult onset neuromuscular disorders can be challenging to treat. Many orthopaedic surgeons are reluctant to recommend total hip replacement (THR) for patients with underlying neuromuscular disorders due to the perceived increased risks of dislocation, implant loosening, and lack of information about the functional outcomes and potential benefits of these procedures in these patients. Modular femoral components and alternative bearings which facilitate the use of large femoral heads, constrained acetabular components and perhaps more importantly, a better understanding about the complications and outcomes of THR in the patient with neuromuscular disorders, make this option viable. This paper will review the current literature and our experience with THR in the more frequently encountered neuromuscular disorders.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):27–31.

We have reviewed the current literature to compare the results of surgery aimed to repair or debride a damaged acetabular labrum. We identified 28 studies to be included in the review containing a total of 1631 hips in 1609 patients. Of these studies 12 reported a mean rate of good results of 82% (from 67% to 100%) for labral debridement. Of the 16 studies that reported a combination of debridement and re-attachment, five reported a comparative outcome for the two methods, four reported better results with re-attachment and one study did not find any significant difference in outcomes. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis or draw accurate conclusions. Confounding factors in the studies include selection bias, use of historical controls and high rates of loss of follow-up.

It seems logical to repair an unstable tear in a good quality labrum with good potential to heal in order potentially to preserve its physiological function. A degenerative labrum on the other hand may be the source of discomfort and its preservation may result in persistent pain and the added risk of failure of re-attachment. The results of the present study do not support routine refixation for all labral tears.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:24–30.