The aim of this study is to examine the differences in long-term mortality rates between infected and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in a single specialist centre over an 18-year period. Retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent rTHA at our tertiary centre between 2003 and 2020 was carried out. Revisions were classified as infected or aseptic. We identified patients’ age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade (ASA) and body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 5 years, 10 years and over the whole study period at 18 years. Death was identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data for the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to death. Where two-stage revision techniques were used of the management of infected cases, these were grouped as a single revision episode for the purpose of analysis. In total, 1138 consecutive hip revisions were performed on 1063 patients (56 bilateral revisions – aseptic, 10 Excision arthroplasties – infection, 9 – Debridement, Antibiotics, Implant retention (DAIR) with 893 aseptic revisions in 837 patients (78.7%) and 245 infected revisions in 226 patients (21.3%). Average age of the entire study cohort was 71.0 (24–101) with 527 female (49.6%). Average age of the infection and aseptic cohorts was 68.8 and 71.5 respectively. Revisions for infection had higher mortality rates throughout the three time points of analysis. Patients’ survivorship for infected vs aseptic revisions was; 77.8% vs 87.7% at 5 years, 62.8% vs 76.5% at 10 years and 62.4% vs 72.0% at 18 years. The unadjusted 10-year risk ratio of death after infected revision was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.28–1.95) compared to aseptic revisions. rTHA performed for infection is associated with significantly higher long-term mortality at all time points compared to aseptic revision surgery

Ceramic bearing fracture is a rare complication following implantation using modern day ceramic bearing materials. Revision bearing options in such cases is debated, with the choice between ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings. Revision to a hard on soft bearing raises concerns about potential catastrophic wear secondary to a third-body reaction caused by the fractured ceramic particles.

Data was collected retrospectively from the NJR, electronic patient records, revision database and picture archiving and communication system. Templating software was used to determine linear wear between first post-operative radiograph and the latest available follow up. Univariate analysis was used to examine patient demographics and the wear rates for revision of ceramic bearing fractures to ceramic on polyethylene components. The intra and inter-rater reliability of wear measurements was calculated.

There were twelve patients identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The average age at revision was 62 years (54–72). There were 6 liner and 6 head fractures revised to delta ceramic heads and cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components. The most frequently used head size was 32mm. At mean follow up of 3.8 years (0.5 6.1 years), median 4.4 years, linear wear rate was calculated at 0.08± 0.06 mm/year. Both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was excellent with ICC scores of 0.99 at all timepoints.

Revision to ceramic on polyethylene (CoP) bearings following ceramic fracture does not cause early catastrophic wear at early follow up. It appears safe to use this hard on soft bearing combination, given that wear rates are comparable to what is expected in a primary hip replacement setting. Longer follow up is required to establish if this trend persists.

Ceramic on ceramic (CoC) Total Hip Replacement revisions give specific problems and no consensus is made on the way to perform it. The aim of this study was to report the results of THA CoC revisions and to identify the specific concerns. Between April 2007 and May 2016, 50 consecutive revisions have been performed on average 2.8 years after the THA, in 46 patients (28 males, 18 females) at a mean age of 55 years. The main reasons for revision were loosening (34%), pain without loosening (20%), infection (12%), implant breakage (10%), and instability (8%). There were 41 implant revisions, five revisions without implant change (10%) and four revisions for head change (8%). Revisions were performed without bone reconstruction in 68% of hips and with a CoC couple in 83% of hips. Three patients have died and three were lost to follow up. There were six intraoperative femoral fractures, one early and two late non−recurrent dislocations. Eight hips (16%) had re−revision with implant replacement. At a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, the mean PMA, Harris and WOMAC scores were 14.8, 72 and 23. 80% of patients were satisfied of the procedure and 89% were ready to re-do the surgery if necessary. 16% of hips experienced a noise. There were no complete lucent lines, no osteolysis, and no implant migration. Wear was not measurable. The 6-year survival rate was 82 % and 90 % if the end-point was implant revision for any cause and for fixation failure, respectively. CoC THA failure mainly affects a young population and occurs early. Failure is not wear-related but possibly related to inadequate technique. It is often possible to perform THA revision without any bone graft, using standard implants and CoC couple, provided the implants are matched

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation.

We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m², and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.

The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06).

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation.

Level of Evidence: IV

In 2022, approximately 60% of inserted cups and stems in Sweden utilized cemented fixation. Two predominant brands, Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R+G, both incorporating gentamicin, were employed in over 90% of primary cemented Total Hip Arthroplasties (THAs) between 2012 and 2022. This study investigates whether the choice between these cement types affects the risk of revision.

The five most frequently used cemented cups and the three most common stems were studied. Inclusion criteria encompassed hips with non-tumour diagnoses, operated through a direct lateral or posterior incision, featuring a 28–36 mm metal or ceramic head. Outcomes were assessed for cup revisions (n=55,457 Refobacin, 37,210 Palacos), stem revisions (n=51,732 Refobacin, 30,018 Palacos), and all-cemented THAs with either brand (n=45,265 Refobacin, 26,347 Palacos). Kaplan-Meier life tables and hazard ratios (HR) utilizing Cox regression were computed, adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, implant type, femoral head size, and material.

Over a 10-year period, the cumulative percent revision with Refobacin was consistently higher than Palacos in all three analyses (cups: Refobacin 2.4 (2.3–2.5), Palacos 2.1 (2.0–2.2); stems: Refobacin 2.6 (2.5–2.7), Palacos 2.1 (2,0–2,2); all-cemented: Refobacin 3.2 (2.9–3.5), Palacos 2.9 (2.6–3.2)). Both unadjusted and adjusted HR were 13–25% lower with Palacos. In the analysis of all-cemented THAs, the adjusted HR for Palacos was 0.85 (0.76–0.95). Separating revisions into infectious and non-infectious reasons revealed a lower risk of infectious revisions with Palacos in all three analyses (all-cemented: adjusted HR infection 0.66 (0.56–0.78); non-infectious 1.10 (0.94–1.28)).

Hips cemented with Refobacin may face an increased risk of infection, potentially due to a smaller release of antibiotics into surrounding tissues. Unaccounted factors like different mixing systems or unknown biases could also influence outcomes, emphasizing the need for further investigation.

Introduction

We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction.

We report 11 patients having revision of total hip arthroplasty using massive structural allografts for failure due to sepsis and associated bone loss. All patients had a two-stage reconstruction and the mean follow-up was 47.8 months (24 to 72). Positive cultures were obtained at the first stage in nine of the 11 patients, with Staphylococcus epidermidis being the most common organism. The other two patients had draining sinuses with negative cultures.

There was no recurrence of infection in any patient. The mean increase in the modified Harris hip score was 45 and all the grafts appeared to have united to host bone. Two patients required additional procedures, but only one was related to the allograft. Complications included an incomplete sciatic nerve palsy and one case of graft resorption. Our results support the use of massive allografts in failed septic hip arthroplasty in which there is associated bone loss.

Outcomes following metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have been poor, and inferior compared with non-ARMD revisions. Subsequently, surgeons and worldwide authorities widely recommended early revision for ARMD, with a lower surgical threshold adopted. However, the impact of early surgery for ARMD is unknown. We compared the rates of adverse outcomes following MoMHR revision surgery in matched ARMD and non-ARMD patients.

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All MoMHR patients subsequently undergoing revision surgery for any indication between August 2008 and August 2014 were eligible. ARMD and non-ARMD revisions were matched one-to-one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Adverse outcomes following revision surgery (intra-operative complications, mortality, re-revision surgery) were compared between matched groups using regression analysis.

In 2,576 matched MoMHR revisions (ARMD=1,288 and non-ARMD=1,288), intra-operative complications were similar between ARMD (2.4%) and non-ARMD (2.5%) revisions (odds ratio=0.97, 95% CI=0.59–1.60; p=0.899). All-cause mortality rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio (HR)=0.43, 95% CI=0.22–0.86; p=0.018). All-cause re-revision rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR=0.52, 95% CI=0.36–0.75; p<0.001). Compared with ARMD revision (5-years=94.3%), MoMHR revisions for infection (5-years=81.2%) and dislocation/subluxation (5-years=81.9%) had the lowest implant survival rates.

Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of re-revision and death compared to non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced outcomes following ARMD revision by widely recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold.

Our findings suggest the threshold for ARMD revision surgery need not be lowered further. The high risk of failure following MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning.

Recent studies have reported on non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) patients requiring revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Although the outcomes following revision surgery for ARMD in MoMHA patients are known to generally be poor, little evidence exists regarding outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD. We determined the outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision.

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary non-MoMHA patients who subsequently underwent revision surgery for ARMD between 2008–2014 were included (n=185). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intraoperative complications, mortality, and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision surgery were identified using Cox regression analysis.

Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n=11) of ARMD revisions. The cumulative 4-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI=92.9–99.5%). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n=25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest re-revision indications. The cumulative 4-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%-88.9%). Significant predictors of re-revision were: multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49; p=0.043), incomplete revision procedures (including modular component exchange only) (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9; p=0.022), and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR=3.08; 95% CI=1.01–9.36; p=0.047).

Non-MoMHA patients undergoing ARMD revision have a high short-term risk of re-revision. Infection, dislocation/subluxation, and aseptic loosening were the commonest re-revision indications. Furthermore, important and potentially modifiable predictors of future re-revision were identified.

Although the poor prognostic factors identified require validation in future studies, our findings may be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with ARMD revision surgery, and guide decisions about the reconstructive procedure.

Literature data show varying rates of aseptic loosening of standard hemispherical cups after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). In order to improve the results regarding the frequency of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component, we decided to use custom-made acetabular implants (CMAI) in this category of patients. The aim of our study was to report outcomes after primary THA using CMAI in patients with Crowe IV DDH. We retrospectively analyzed the results of primary THA using the CMAI in 58 hips. The mean follow-up period was 5.2 years (range 4.2 – 6.3). Patients demonstrated improved functional outcomes according to the Oxford Hip Score: preoperatively 16.9 and postoperatively 38.5 (P < 0.05). Revisions were performed in 2 cases due to dislocations, in 1 case due to nonunion of the greater trochanter and in 1 case due to chronic pain syndrome caused by contact of the CMAI flange with the iliopsoas muscle. In a patient with chronic pain syndrome, during the revision, the pubic flange of the CMAI, which was in contact with the iliopsoas muscle, was removed. There were no radiological signs of loosening of the CMAI. The use of CMAI shows good results in patients with DDH. Extended capability for supplementary screw fixation is an excellent feature of such implants, allowing them to obtain reliable primary fixation. Further observation is required to assess CMAI in the long-term follow-up

Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture. Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene). 366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture. There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address

We previously reported the five to ten-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of the BHR at long-term follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed 250 patients from the original cohort of 324 BHRs performed from 2006 to 2013 who met contemporary BHR indications. Of these, 4 patients died and 4 withdrew. From the 242 patients, 224 patients (93%) were available for analysis. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were collected and compared to a matched total hip arthroplasty (THA) cohort. Mean follow-up was 14 years. Survivorship free of aseptic revision was 97.4% and survivorship free of any revision was 96.0% at 15 years. Revisions included 3 periprosthetic joint infections, 2 for elevated metal ions and symptomatic pseudotumor, 2 for aseptic femoral loosening, and 1 for unexplained pain. The mean mHHS was 93 in BHR patients at final follow-up, similar to the THA cohort (p=0.44). The UCLA score was significantly higher for BHR patients (p=0.02), however there were equal proportions of patients who remained highly active (UCLA 9 or 10) in both groups, 60.5% and 52.2% (p=0.45) for BHR and THA respectively. Metal ion levels at long term follow-up were low (mean serum cobalt 1.8±1.5 ppb and mean serum chromium 2.2±2.0 ppb). BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship in males less than 60 years of age at time of surgery. Clinical outcomes and activity levels were similar to THA patients. Failures related to the metal-on-metal bearing were rare and metal levels were low at long-term follow-up. Level of evidence: III. Keywords: survivorship; hip arthroplasty; activity; metal-on-metal. Surface Replacement Arthroplasty demonstrates low revision rates and similar activity level compared to total hip arthroplasty at long-term follow-up

Angular proximal femoral deformities increase the technical complexity of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The goals were to determine the long-term implant survivorship, risk factors, complications, and clinical outcomes of contemporary primary THAs in this difficult cohort. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 119 primary THAs performed in 109 patients with an angular proximal femoral deformity between 1997 and 2017. The deformity was related to previous femoral osteotomy in 85%, and developmental or metabolic disorders in 15%. 53% had a predominantly varus angular deformity. The mean age was 44 years, mean BMI was 29 kg/m. 2. , and 59% were female. An uncemented metaphyseal fixation stem was used in 30%, an uncemented diaphyseal fixation stem in 28%, an uncemented modular body stem with metaphyseal fixation sleeve in 24%, and a cemented stem in 18%. Simultaneous corrective femoral osteotomy was performed in 18%. Kaplan-Meier survivorships and Harris hip scores were reported. Mean follow-up was 8 years. The 10-year survivorships free of femoral loosening, aseptic femoral revision, any revision, and any reoperation were 95%, 93%, 90% and 88%, respectively. Revisions occurred in 13 hips for: aseptic femoral component loosening (3), stem fracture (2), dislocation (2), aseptic acetabular loosening (2), polyethylene liner exchange (2), and infection (2). Preoperative varus angular deformities were associated with a higher risk of any revision (HR 10, p=0.03), and simultaneous osteotomies with a higher risk of any reoperation (HR 3.6, p=0.02). Mean Harris hip scores improved from 52 preoperatively to 82 at 10 years (p<0.001). In the largest series to date of primary THAs in patients with angular proximal femoral deformities, we found a good 10-year survivorship free from any revision. Varus angular deformities, particularly those treated with a simultaneous osteotomy due to the magnitude or location of the deformity, had a higher reoperation rate. Keywords: Proximal femoral deformity; dysplasia; femoral osteotomy; survivorship; revision. Level of evidence: Level III, comparative retrospective cohort

Aims. The purpose of this study is to examine six types of bearing surfaces implanted at a single institution over three decades to determine whether the reasons for revision vary among the groups and how long it takes to identify differences in survival. Methods. We considered six cohorts that included a total of 1,707 primary hips done between 1982 and 2010. These included 223 conventional polyethylene sterilized with γ irradiation in air (CPE-GA), 114 conventional polyethylene sterilized with gas plasma (CPE-GP), 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 1,083 metal-on-metal (MOM), 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC), and 81 surface arthroplasties (SAs). With the exception of the COC, all other groups used cobalt-chromium (CoCr) femoral heads. The mean follow-up was 10 (0.008 to 35) years. Descriptive statistics with revisions per 100 component years (re/100 yr) and survival analysis with revision for any reason as the endpoint were used to compare bearing surfaces. Results. XLPE liners demonstrated a lower cumulative incidence of revision at 15 years compared to the CPE-GA and CPE-GP groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (4% for XLPE vs 18%, p = 0.02, and 15%, p = 0.003, respectively). Revisions for adverse local tissue reactions occurred exclusively among the MOM (0.8 re/100 year) and SA groups (0.1 re/100 year). The revision rate for instability was lower among hips with 36 mm and larger head sizes compared to smaller head sizes (0.2% vs 2%, p < 0.001). Conclusion. The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up compared to CPE-GP and CPE-GA. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. The potential for adverse local tissue reactions with MOM requires continued follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):105–111

Introduction. Prior to the introduction of alternative bearing surfaces, patients were typically counseled to expect that their total hip arthroplasty (THA) using conventional polyethylene would last for 10 years. With the introduction of crosslinked polyethylene and hard-on-hard bearing surfaces, revisions related to bearing surface wear were expected to decrease. We examined six different bearing surfaces used at our institution over three decades to evaluate how the overall survivorship, reasons for revision and Harris Hip Scores have changed with time. Methods. We identified six cohorts of patients with 754 primary hips done between 1983 and 2007. With the exception of 81 Birmingham hip resurfacings (BHR), all femoral components were straight, extensively porous-coated cylindrical (EPC) stems (AML and Prodigy). All cups were porous coated. In addition to the BHRs, the bearing surfaces included 223 conventional polyethylene (CPE) in a non-modular shell, 114 CPE in a modular shell, 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 130 metal-on-metal (MOM), and 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC). The mean follow-up for all hip replacements is 13.0±6.0 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship using revision for any reason as an endpoint with log rank testing was used to evaluate differences among groups. Results. Although there were no differences in survivorship at 10-year follow-up among the groups (p=0.53), the XLPE liners demonstrated improved survivorship at 15-years compared to both CPE groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (97% versus 83% for non-modular and 85% for modular cups respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.008). Revisions for femoral loosening have only occurred among 0.6% (4/673) of EPC stems. Revisions for cup loosening have occurred among 4% (10/223) of the non-modular cups but there are none among the other groups. The incidence of dislocation was reduced with the MOM, BHR and COC bearings that used 36-mm or larger femoral heads compared to the THAs that used 28-mm or 32-mm heads [1.1 % (3/261) versus 5.1% (25/493), p<0.01]. Infection has led to revision among 2 THAs with CPE in non-modular cups (0.9%), 2 MOM (1.5%), and 2 COC (2.2%). At 10-year follow-up, Harris Hip Scores tended to be higher among the BHRs compared to the other groups (92.1 versus 82.9, p<0.01). Discussion. The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up. Hard-on-hard bearing surfaces are performing relatively well but differences are not yet discernable compared to CPE. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. Infection continues to occur although the incidence remains low. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

In health care, several studies have suggested worse outcomes in African-Americans. Our objective was to study the relationships of race with outcomes in a series of total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases. A consecutive series of 2,435 total hip/knee arthroplasties (primaries and revisions) performed in a single hospital by a single surgeon were studied. Revisions due to infections were excluded. Data on race was available for 718 THAs which were finally included. Cases of African-Americans (AA) (n=55) and Whites (n=663) were compared on baseline demographics, Charlson, ASA, preoperative-diagnosis; preoperative and postoperative pain intensity/frequency visual-analogue-scale, QWB-7, SF-36, WOMAC, Hip Harris, Postel-D'Aubigne scores; and on postoperative transfusion rates. T-tests, Chi-Square, MANCOVA (age, ethnicity, BMI, and preoperative-diagnosis adjustments) were used. Mean follow-up: 3 years. Alpha was set at 0.05. At baseline and compared to Whites, African-Americans were significantly younger (mean, 67 vs. 59 years), had fewer Hispanics (61% vs. 26%), and had higher BMI (28.5 vs. 30.6 Kg/m. 2. ) (all p≤0.048), respectively. Preoperative diagnoses were significantly different (p<0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups on preoperative scores after adjusting for confounders. Postoperatively, SF-36 bodily-pain (70 vs. 57), SF-36 mental-component-summary (56 vs. 53), WOMAC-total (5 vs. 12), and WOMAC-stiffness (0.14 vs. 0.57) were significantly worse in African-Americans (all p≤0.043), respectively. African-Americans underwent more transfusions (28% vs. 65%, p=0.001). Compared to Whites, African-Americans underwent THA earlier in life, with higher BMI, and different preoperative-diagnosis. They also had worse postoperative scores and more transfusions. Race seems to be strongly associated with outcomes

Principles of bone preservation and restoration of biomechanical alignment should be followed during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Where possible, conservative femoral revision techniques and even reconstructive de-escalation involving using primary stems should be considered. This study aims to investigate the outcome of patients who have undergone conservative femoral revision THA in our Institution. We retrospectively identified patients from our Institution's revision arthroplasty database who had cemented, or un-cemented primary stems implanted during revision THA of a previous stemmed femoral implant. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause re-revision THA with a secondary outcome measure of improvement in Oxford hip score (OHS). Radiographic evidence of stem loosening and post-op complications were recorded. Between 02/12/2014 to 12/12/2019, there were 226 patients identified with a mean follow up of 2 years (1–5 years). The majority of cases were represented by Paprosky type 1 (63%) and type 2 (25%) femoral defects. There were 45 patients (20%) who underwent impaction bone grafting (IBG) and 43 patients (19%) who had a cement in cement (CinC) femoral revision and cemented primary stem in 137 (60%), 1 uncemented stem with no IBG or CinC revision. Kaplan Meier survival for all-cause re-revision THA was 93.7% (95% CI: 88.3 – 100) at 3 years. The reasons for re-revision included 4 periprosthetic fractures, 4 dislocations, 1 deep infection, 1 loosening of femoral component and 1 loosening of acetabular component. Pre- and post-operative OHS scores were available in 137 hips (60%) with a mean improvement of 13. Radiographic review revealed 7% of cases with evidence of loosening in 1 or more Gruen zones. Our early results support the use of conservative femoral revision THA techniques where appropriate, with low complication and re-revision rates. Revisions using primary femoral components, where appropriate, should be considered in surgical planning to avoid unnecessary reconstructive escalation

Aims. Femoral stems with exchangeable (modular) necks were introduced to offer surgeons an increased choice when determining the version, offset and length of the femoral neck during total hip arthroplasty (THA). It was hoped that this would improve outcomes and reduce complications, particularly dislocation. In 2010, the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) first reported an increased rate of revision after primary THA using femoral stems with an exchangeable neck. The aim of this study was to provide a more comprehensive up-to-date analysis of primary THA using femoral stems with exchangeable and fixed necks. Materials and Methods. The data included all primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA), reported to the AOANJRR between 01 September 1999 and 31 December 2014. There were 9289 femoral stems with an exchangeable neck and 253 165 femoral stems with a fixed neck. The characteristics of the patients and prostheses including the bearing surface and stem/neck metal combinations were examined using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. . Results. It was found that prostheses with an exchangeable neck had a higher rate of revision and this was evident regardless of the bearing surface or the size of the femoral head. Exchangeable neck prostheses with a titanium stem and a cobalt-chromium neck had a significantly higher rate of revision compared with titanium stem/titanium neck combinations (HR 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.23, p < 0.001). Revisions were higher for these combinations compared with femoral stems with a fixed neck. Conclusion . There appears to be little evidence to support the continued use of prostheses with an exchangeable neck in primary THA undertaken for OA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:766–73

Introduction. The impact of pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs) within the second decade is unknown. We investigated: (1) the incidence and risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumour revision following MoMHR at 15-years follow-up, and (2) whether risk factors were gender specific. Patients and methods. This single-centre prospective cohort study included 1429 MoMHRs (1216 patients; 40% female) implanted between 1999–2009. All patients were contacted in 2010 and 2012 as per national recommendations. Patients with hip problems and/or suboptimal Oxford Hip Scores (<41/48) underwent cross-sectional imaging and blood metal ion sampling. Revisions were performed as indicated with diagnoses confirmed from operative and histopathological findings. Multi-variate Cox proportional hazard models assessed the association of predictor variables on time to all-cause and pseudotumour revision. Results. Revisions were performed in 180 MoMHRs (111 for pseudotumour; 62%). Incidence and 15-year revision rates were 12.6% and 19.5% (95% CI 16.2%-23.2%) respectively for all-causes, and 7.8% and 14.0% (95% CI 11.0%-17.7%) respectively for pseudotumours. Smaller femoral head sizes (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.97), p=0.003) and implant design (HR=1.55–3.01, p<0.029) significantly increased all-cause revision risk. Female gender (HR=0.49 (95% CI 0.29–0.84), p=0.009) and young age (HR=0.98 (95% CI 0.96–1.00), p=0.020) also significantly increased pseudotumour revision risk but not all-cause revision risk. Risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumour revision were gender specific. In females, smaller femoral head sizes (p=0.014) increased all-cause revision risk, with young age the only predictor of pseudotumour revision (p=0.019). In males, implant design predicted both all-cause (p<0.015) and pseudotumour revision (p=0.001). Discussion. Incidence and revision rates for all-cause and pseudotumour revision were high in the second decade following MoMHR. Revision predictors differed for all-cause compared to pseudotumour revision, and were also gender specific. Conclusion. Current worldwide follow-up recommendations must ensure these factors are appropriately weighted when risk stratifying MoMHR patients for surveillance

Introduction. Survival after contemporary solid organ transplant (SOT) is increasing, and demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) among SOT recipients is rising accordingly. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes and short-term implant- and patient-survivorship of contemporary THA following the most common types of SOT. Methods. Among SOT recipients, 119 primary THAs (92 patients, 39% female) were performed at a single institution from 2000–2020 and were retrospectively reviewed at a mean follow-up of 3.6yrs. Revisions, conversion to THA and multiple organs transplanted were excluded. The most common SOT was renal (39%), followed by lung (34%), liver (18%) and heart (8%). Demographics, peri-operative outcomes, 90-day re-admissions, re-operations and mortality were compared between SOT groups using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon tests and Cox proportional hazard ratios. Results. Renal (median: 52yrs, 25–75%ile: 45.1–58.1) and heart transplant patients (55.4, 53.8–68.8) presented for THA at younger ages than liver (62.8, 50.0–67.6) and lung patients (63.1, 55.4–69.0; p<0.001). However, renal patients had the longest duration between SOT and THA (8.2yrs, 2.8–13.7; p=0.002), followed by liver (5.0, 1.2–11.4), heart (4.2, 2.4–9.6) and lung (2.6, 1.3–5.5). LOS was 3.0 days (p=0.31), 16% were discharged to a facility (p=0.87), and 9.4% required transfusion (p=0.43). Eighteen patients required re-admission within 90days (15%; p=0.44), and four underwent revision at 1-yr (3.4%; p=0.42). Mortality was 4.3% at 1yr (95% CI: 1.6–10.9) and 23.1% at 3yrs (95% CI: 15.0–32.9). When adjusted for age, ASA class, and duration from SOT to THA, lung transplant had higher mortality relative to kidney (RR 4.28, 95% CI: 1.79–11.26; p<0.001) and liver (RR 5.84, 95% CI: 1.95–25.29; p<0.001). Conclusion. SOT patients are a medically complex group with substantial requirements for facility placement, transfusions and re-admissions after THA. Short-term implant survivorship is acceptable, but THA in SOT patients is not without mortality risk, especially among lung transplant recipients