There has been an evolution in revision hip arthroplasty towards cementless reconstruction. Whilst cemented arthroplasty works well in the primary setting, the difficulty with achieving cement fixation in femoral revisions has led to a move towards removal of cement, where it was present, and the use of ingrowth components. These have included proximally loading or, more commonly, distally fixed stems. We have been through various iterations of these, notably with extensively porous coated cobalt chrome stems and recently with taper-fluted titanium stems. As a result of this, cemented stems have become much less popular in the revision setting. Allied to concerns about fixation and longevity of cemented fixation revision, there were also worries in relation to bone cement implantation syndrome when large cement loads were pressurised into the femoral canal at the time of stem cementation. This was particularly the case with longer stems. Technical measures are available to reduce that risk but the fear is nevertheless there. In spite of this direction of travel and these concerns, there is, however, still a role for cemented stems in revision hip arthroplasty. This role is indeed expanding. First and foremost, the use of cement allows for local antibiotic delivery using a variety of drugs both instilled in the cement at the time of manufacture or added by the surgeon when the cement is mixed. This has advantages when dealing with periprosthetic infection. Thus, cement can be used both as interval spacers but also for definitive fixation when dealing with periprosthetic hip infection. The reconstitution of bone stock is always attractive, particularly in younger patients or those with stove pipe canals. This is achieved well using impaction grafting with cement and is another extremely good use of cement. In the very elderly or those in whom proximal femoral resection is needed at the time of revision surgery, distal fixation with cement provides a good solution for immediate weight bearing and does not have the high a risk of fracture seen with large cementless stems. Cement is also useful in cases of proximal femoral deformity or where cement has been used in a primary arthroplasty previously. We have learnt that if the cement is well-fixed then the bond of cement-to-cement is excellent and therefore retention of the cement mantle and recementation into that previous mantle is a great advantage. This avoids the risks of cement removal and allows for much easier fixation. Stems have been designed specifically to allow this cement-in-cement technique. It can be used most readily with polished tapered stems - tap out a stem, gain access at the time of revision surgery and reinsert it. It is, however, now increasingly used when any cemented stems are removed provided that the cement mantle is well fixed. The existing mantle is either wide enough to accommodate the cement-in-cement revision or can be expanded using manual instruments or ultrasonic tools. The cement interface is then dried and a new stem cemented in place. Whilst the direction of travel in revision hip arthroplasty has been towards cementless fixation, particularly with tapered distally fixed designs, the reality is that there is still a role for cement for its properties of immediate fixation, reduced fracture risk, local antibiotic delivery, impaction grafting and cement-in-cement revision

Aim. To assess the results of Castles procedure performed at our hospital compared with those available in literature. Introduction. Fifteen patients (19 hips) with severe disability and hip subluxation/dislocation underwent proximal femoral resection arthroplasty (Castles procedure) over a 10 year period under the care of 2 paediatric orthopaedic surgeons. We conducted a retrospective study of case series whether the surgery (Castles procedure) improved the pain levels, sitting tolerance, ability to use commode/nappy change, ease of dressing and the carers overall satisfaction with the procedure. Patients and methods. We reviewed the surgeons' and theatre log books for patients' details. We then contacted the patients' parents/guardian by telephone, and using a set questionnaire, we obtained valuable information on how successful the surgery had been in their opinion. Results. Out of 15 patients, 14 had severe cerebral palsy and one had severe brain damage secondary to trauma. The average age at surgery was 4.23 years (range 6–118 months). 14 patients obtained significant pain relief but one patient remained the same. 13 patients were found to have both sitting tolerance and sleeping improved. One patient suffered a pressure sore which has healed with conservative management. 2 patients had additional trimming procedure for heterotopic ossification excision. Apart from this there were no cases of skin breakdown. All patients found the bathing and dressing change was easier post operatively. 2 carers required extra help as the limbs were floppy but not a major issue compared to the overall benefits from the Castles procedure. Overall 13 carers were very satisfied with the procedure, two were satisfied and none were unsatisfied. Conclusion. Our telephone survey shows the Castles procedure was a successful salvage procedure for painful dislocated hips in non-ambulatory patients with severe disability