Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in the presence of femoral defects can be technically challenging. Reconstruction with long stems is widely accepted as the standard. However long stems can be difficult to insert and can compromise distal bone stock for future revisions. The aims of this study were to identify whether there was a difference in survival and outcomes following rTHA using a long versus standard or short femoral stem. A comprehensive systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria were (i) adult patients >18 years; (ii) randomised controlled trials, joint registry, or cohort studies; (iii) single or staged rTHA for Paprosky 1–3B femoral defects. Exclusion criteria were (i) mixed reporting without subgroup analysis for revision stem length; (ii) ex-vivo studies. Screening for eligibility and assessment of studies was performed by the authors. Out of 341 records, 9 studies met criteria for analysis (including 1 study utilising joint registry data and 1 randomised controlled trial). Across studies there were 3102 rTHAs performed in 2982 patients with a mean age of 67.4 years and a male: female ratio of 0.93. Revision prostheses were long-stemmed in 1727 cases and short or standard in 1375 cases with a mean follow up of 5 years (range, 0-15 years). On subgroup analysis the use of a long cemented stem compared to a long cementless prosthesis was associated with fewer complications and periprosthetic fracture in older patients. Survivorship was 95% with short stems compared to 84% with long stems at 5 years. Moderate quality evidence suggests that in rTHA with Paprosky type 1-3B femoral defects, the use of a short or standard stem can achieve comparable outcomes to long stems with fewer significant complications and revisions. Using a shorter stem may yield a more straightforward surgical technique and can preserve distal bone stock for future revision

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique.

Aims

Several short- and mid-term studies have shown minimal liner wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), but the safety of using thinner HXLPE liners to maximize femoral head size remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to analyze clinical survival and radiological wear rates of patients with HXLPE liners, a 36 mm femoral head, and a small acetabular component with a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA.

Background. Method of fixation in THA is a contentious issue, with proponents of either technique citing improved implant survival and outcomes. Current comparisons rely on insufficiently powered studies with short-term follow up or larger poorly controlled registry studies. Patient factors are considered a key variable contributing to the risk of implant failure. One way to overcome this confounder is to compare the survival of cementless and cemented THAs patients who have undergone bilateral THAs with cemented hip on one side and cementless hip on the other. We compared stem survival of patients who have bilateral THA with one cemented stem in one hip and a cementless stem in the contralateral hip in the National Joint Registry. Methods. UK National Joint Registry is the largest registry of its kind in the world. This study included 2934 patients with 5868 THAs who underwent bilateral THAs s between 2003 and 2016. These patients had undergone bilateral sequential THAs within 3 years of each other: cemented THA on one side and cementless on the other, Patients had identical pre-operative American Society of Anaesthesiologists group for both THAs and same indication for surgery. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression with an endpoint of stem revision. Results. Ten-year all-cause survival of cementless stems was lower than for cemented stems (p<0.001), as was survival to aseptic loosening revision (p<0.001). Similar trends were seen across all age groups including young and old patients. There was a non-significant trend towards superiority of cemented stems in survival until periprosthetic fracture, dislocation and infection. Conclusion. Comparison of cementless with cemented stems within patients is a novel method to compare the outcomes of orthopaedic implants. Survival was better for cemented stems including for younger patients and aseptic loosening

Aims

To investigate the effect of polyethylene manufacturing characteristics and irradiation dose on the survival of cemented and reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

Objectives. A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40), periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11). Results. Salvage was achieved in all patients. A total of 25 patients (25 EPRs, 31.6%) had a complication, the most common being infection (n = 9) and dislocation (n = 3). Further surgery was required for 18 EPRs (22%), nine of which were revision procedures. The five year survival of the EPR was 87% (95%CI: 76% to 98%). The mean OHS was 28 (4 to 48). Inferior survival and outcomes were seen in EPRs which were performed for the treatment of infection. However, the eradication of infection was achieved in 33 of the 40 (82.5%) which were undertaken for this indication. Conclusion. We recommend the continued use of proximal femoral EPRs for non-neoplastic indications, including PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1463–70

The management of proximal femoral bone loss is a significant challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. A possible solution is the use of a modular proximal femur endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the survivorship and functional outcome of megaprostheses used in tumour surgery has been well described, outcome of EPRs used in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year outcome following proximal femur EPR and determine factors that influence it. This was a retrospective consecutive case series of all EPRs (n=80) performed for non-neoplastic indications, by 6 surgeons, in our tertiary referral centre, between 2005–2014. Patient demographics and relevant clinical details were determined from notes. The most common indications for the use of EPRs included infection (n=40), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=12) and failed osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures/complex trauma (n=11). Outcome measures included complication and re-operation rates, implant survival and assessment of functional outcome using the Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS). The mean age at surgery was 69 years and mean follow-up was 4 (0 – 11) years. The mean number of previous hip operations was 2.4 (range: 0 – 17). Twenty-five patients sustained a complication (31%), the most common being infection (n=9) and dislocation (n=4). By follow-up, further surgery was required in 18 (22%) hips, 9 of which were EPR revisions. 5-yr implant survivorship was 87% (95%CI: 76 – 98%). Mean OHS was 28 (range: 4 – 48). Inferior survival and outcome were seen in EPRs performed for the treatment of infection. Infection eradication was achieved in 34/41 with the index EPR procedure and in 40/41 hips by follow-up. Limb salvage was achieved in all cases and acceptable complication- and re-operation rates were seen. EPRs for periprosthetic fractures and failed osteosynthesis had best outcome. We recommend the continued use of proximal femur EPR in complex revision surgery

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a consecutive series of patients aged less than 50 years at the time of arthroplasty using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system (BHR), with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82).

We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision.

A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99).

The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44.

Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre.

In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of 51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1 to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended on gender and the size of the implant. In female hips (n = 267) the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 (sd 8) and the mean UCLA activity score was 6.4 (sd 2). In male hips (n = 379) the ten-year survival was 95% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.4), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 1.7%, the mean OHS was 45 (sd 6) and the mean UCLA score was 7.6 (sd 2). In the most demanding subgroup, comprising male patients aged < 50 years treated for primary osteoarthritis, the survival was 99% (95% CI 97 to 100).

This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with conventional THR. In contrast, the results in women have been poor and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of pseudotumour with the passage of time.

The outcome of total hip replacement (THR) is potentially affected by the body mass index (BMI) of the patient. We studied the outcome of 2026 consecutive primary cementless THRs performed for osteoarthritis. The mean follow-up was 6.3 years (0 to 11.71) and no patient was lost to follow-up for survival analysis. The patients were divided into two groups according to their BMI as follows: non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m²) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²).

The obese patient undergoing surgery was found to be significantly younger (p < 0.001). The log-rank test for equality of survival showed no difference in the mid-term survival (p = 0.552) with an estimated survival at 11 years of 95.2% (95% CI 92.5 to 98.0) in the non-obese and 96.7% (95% CI 94.9 to 98.5) in the obese groups. The clinical and radiological outcome was determined in a case-matched study performed on 134 obese individuals closely matched with 134 non-obese controls. The non-obese group was found to have a significantly higher post-operative Harris hip score (p < 0.001) and an increased range of movement, but overall satisfaction with surgery was comparable with that of the obese patients. Radiological analysis of the acetabular and femoral components showed no significant differences with regard to radiolucent lines, osteolysis, ingrowth of the femoral component, the acetabular inclination angle or alignment of the femoral component. Our results suggest that the survival of cementless THR is not adversely affected by obesity. Obese patients can therefore be counselled that despite a lower clinical score, they should expect to be satisfied with the result of their THR with a mid-term survival rate equivalent to that of non-obese patients.