We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups.

In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.

Periprosthetic fracture of the femur is an uncommon complication after total hip replacement, but appears to be increasing. We undertook a nationwide observational study to determine the risk factors for failure after treatment of these fractures, examining patient- and implant-related factors, the classification of the fractures and the outcome.

Between 1979 and 2000, 1049 periprosthetic fractures of the femur were reported to the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 245 had a further operation after failure of their initial management. Data were collected from the Register and hospital records. The material was analysed by the use of Poisson regression models.

It was found that the risk of failure of treatment was reduced for Vancouver type B2 injuries (p = 0.0053) if revision of the implant was undertaken (p = 0.0033) or revision and open reduction and internal fixation (p = 0.0039) were performed. Fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 had a significantly higher risk of failure (p = 0.0001). The strongest negative factor was the use of a single plate for fixation (p = 0.001). The most common reasons for failure in this group were loosening of the femoral prosthesis, nonunion and re-fracture.

It is probable that many fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 (n = 304), were in reality type B2 fractures with a loose stem which were not recognised. Plate fixation was inadequate in these cases. The difficulty in separating type B1 from type B2 fractures suggests that the prosthesis should be considered as loose until proven otherwise.