Standard practice in revision total hip replacement (THR) for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is to remove all cement from the femoral canal prior to implantation of a new component. This can make the procedure time consuming and complex. Since 1991 it has been our practice to preserve the old femoral cement where it remains well fixed to bone, even if the cement mantle is fractured, and to cement a new component into the old mantle. We have reviewed the data of 48 consecutive patients, treated at our unit between 1991 and 2009, with a first PPF around a cemented primary THR stem where a cement in cement revision was performed. 8 hips were revised to a standard length stem, 39 hips to a long stem & 1 patient had the same stem reinserted. All fractures were reduced and held with cerclage wires or cables and four had supplementary plate fixation. Full clinical and radiographic follow up was available in 38 patients & clinical or radiographic follow up in a further 6 patients. The other 4 patients. without follow up but whose outcome is known, have suffered no complications and are pain free. Of the remaining 44 patients, forty-two went on to union of the fracture and two have required further surgery for non-union. One patient has ongoing undiagnosed hip pain. Our long term experience with cement in cement revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures shows that this is a viable technique with a low complication rate and high rate of union (95%) in what is generally regarded as a very difficult condition to treat

Introduction. Cement in cement revision with preservation of the original cement mantle has become an attractive and commonly practised technique in revision hip surgery. Since introducing this technique to our unit we have used two types of polished tapered stem. We report the clinical and radiological outcomes for cement in cement femoral revisions performed using these prostheses. Materials and Methods. All patients who underwent femoral cement in cement revision with a smooth tapered stem between 2005 –2013 were assessed. Data collected included indication for revision surgery and components used. All patients were followed up annually. Outcomes recorded were radiographic analysis, clinical outcome scores (Oxford Hip Score, WOMAC and SF-12) and complications, including requirement for further revision surgery. Median follow-up was 5 years (range 1 – 8 years). 116 revision procedures utilising cement in cement femoral revision were performed in the 8 year study period (68 females, 48 males, and mean age of 69 years). The femoral component was a C-stem AMT (Depuy) in 59 cases and Exeter stem (Stryker) in 57 cases. Results. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no progressive radiolucencies around the femoral component in any patient and no evidence of stem loosening at most recent review. Median Oxford Hip Score increased from 15 to 32, WOMAC from 22 to 38, and SF-12 from 25 to 32. Two patients had a further revision procedure for recurrent dislocation and 1 patient for infection. Two patients had a peri-prosthetic fracture at 4 years following initial revision surgery. There were 2 femoral stem fractures (occurring at 3 and 4 years post revision, both occurring in Exeter stems). Conclusion. Our results report cement in cement revision of the femoral component provides promising mid-term radiographic and clinical results. No femoral stems required revision for aseptic loosening. Stem fracture however occurred in 2 cases suggesting stem design is crucial for this technique

Revision of a cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip may be a hazardous procedure with high rates of intra-operative complications. Removing well-fixed cement is time consuming and risks damaging already weak bone or perforating the femoral shaft. The cement-in-cement method avoids removal of intact cement and has shown good results when used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of this technique for the revision of a hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. A total of 28 consecutive hemiarthroplasties (in 28 patients) were revised to a THA using an Exeter stem and the cement-in-cement technique. There were four men and 24 women; their mean age was 80 years (35 to 93). Clinical and radiographic data, as well as operative notes, were collected prospectively and no patient was lost to follow-up. Four patients died within two years of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 70 months (25 to 124). Intra-operatively there was one proximal perforation, one crack of the femoral calcar and one acetabular fracture. No femoral components have required subsequent revision for aseptic loosening or are radiologically loose. . Four patients with late complications (14%) have since undergone surgery (two for a peri-prosthetic fracture, and one each for deep infection and recurrent dislocation) resulting in an overall major rate of complication of 35.7%. The cement-in-cement technique provides reliable femoral fixation in this elderly population and may reduce operating time and rates of complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1623–7

Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct. Methods. We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97). Results. There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case. Conclusion. While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis. Methods. The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. Results. The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Conclusion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997–1002

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

Introduction. Revision of well cemented femoral components in revision THA can be technically challenging and time consuming. The cement in cement (CiC) technique addresses these issues. Results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions have not previously been reported. Objective. We present the clinical and radiological results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions with a minimum follow up of 5 years. Methods. Forty nine revision procedures were performed in 24 patients (10 males, 14 females). Seven patients died due to unrelated causes. The outcomes of all patients are known. Functional assessment were performed using the original Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d'Aubigne Postel(MDP) score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test. The level of significance was set at p=0.05. Radiographs were reviewed for signs of loosening at each visit. Results. The mean age was 67.5 years. Average duration of follow up was 81.7 months (range 24–240 months). Forty one revision procedures were performed for acetabular revision (the stem was removed to facilitate exposure), 6 were for revision of both components and 2 were isolated stem revisions. Each patient had undergone an average of 2 revision procedures. Four revisions were performed for infection. Mean preoperative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 38 (Range 3–44), 43 (Range 27–56) and 7 (Range 3–13) respectively. Average post-operative Harris, Oxford and Merle D'Aubigne Postel scores were 68 (Range 45–70) (p=0.0199), 31 (Range 12–56) (p=0.0397) and 13 (Range 4–18)(p=0.0423) respectively. There were no signs of loosening follow up. Conclusion. Cement in cement femoral revision is an effective technique for patients requiring multiple revisions of a well fixed cemented stem. It is associated with pain relief and significant functional improvement in the medium term

Although cement in cement acetabular revision is a recognised option in the presence of a well-fixed cement mantle, partial cement mantle retention is not normally recommended or practiced. However, when revising a cemented acetabular cup it is not infrequent to be faced with loose superolateral cement but well-fixed medial cement. Removal of the well-fixed cement can be time consuming and destructive. An alternative would be to retain this cement and incorporate it into the reconstruction. This study assesses the practice and results of partial cement mantle retention (PCR) at acetabular revision. We retrospectively identified a cohort of 28 hips in 26 patients using the PCR technique from 1. st. January 2000 to 1. st. January 2013. This represented 3.3% of cup revisions where a cemented cup was used. The area of cement loss was reconstructed in one of three ways: re-cementing into drill holes (6 cases); impaction grafting of the defect (8 cases); or use of a trabecular metal wedge (14 cases). 24 hips had a minimum 2-year follow up (mean 6 years). There were no subsequent revisions for aseptic loosening. One acetabulum was later revised for dislocation and X-rays were lost in one patient leaving 22 patients with x-ray available and retained implants. Two of these cases showed progression of lucent lines, which were not clinically significant. Retaining well-fixed medial cement during socket revision appears to be a reasonable reconstruction option in carefully selected cases

Safe and meticulous removal of the femoral cement mantle and cement restrictor can be a challenging process in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Many proximal femoral osteotomies have been described to access this region however they can be associated with fracture, non-union and revision stem instability. The aim of this study is to report outcomes of our previously unreported vascularised anterior window to the proximal femur. We report on a cohort of patients who underwent cemented single and staged rTHA at our single institution by the same surgeon between 2012 and 2017 using a novel vascularised anterior window of the femur to extract the cement mantle and restrictor safely under direct vision. We describe our technique, which maintains the periosteal and muscular attachments to the osteotomised fragment, which is then repaired with a polymer cerclage cable. In all revisions a polished, taper slip, long stem Exeter was cemented. Primary outcome measures included the time taken for union and the patient reported WOMAC score. Thirty-two rTHAs were performed in 29 consecutive patients (13 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 63.4 years (range, 47–88). The indications for revision included infection, aseptic loosening and implant malpositioning. Mean follow up was 5.3 (range, 3.2–8 years). All femoral windows achieved radiographic union by a mean of 7.2 weeks. At the latest point in follow-up the mean WOMAC score was 21.6 and femoral component survivorship was 100%. There were no intraoperative complications or additional revision surgery. Our proposed vascularised anterior windowing technique of the femur is a safe and reproducible method to remove the distal femoral cement and restrictor under direct vision without the need for perilous instruments. This method also preserves the proximal bone stock and provides the surgeon with the option of cemented stems over uncemented revision implants that predominantly rely on distal fixation

Trabecular metal (TM) augments are designed to support an uncemented socket in revision surgery when adequate rim fit is not possible. We have used TM augments in an alternative arrangement, to contain segmental defects to facilitate impaction bone grafting (IBG) and cementation of a cemented socket. However, there is a paucity of literature supporting the use of this technique. We present one of the largest studies to date, reporting early outcomes of patients from a tertiary centre. A single-centre retrospective analytical study of prospectively collected data was performed on patients who had undergone complex acetabular reconstruction using TM augments, IBG and a cemented cup. All patients operated between 2015 and 2019 were included. We identified 105 patients with a mean age of 74yrs. The mean follow-up was 2.3 years(1–5.5yrs). Our primary outcome measure was all-cause revision of the construct. The secondary outcome measures were, Oxford hip score (OHS), radiographic evidence of cup migration/loosening and post-op complications. Eighty-four out of 105 patients belonged to Paprosky grade IIb, IIc or IIIa. Kaplan-Meier survivorship for all-cause revision was 96.36% (CI, 90.58–100.00) at 2 years with 3 failures. Two were due to early infection which required two-stage re-revision. The third was due to post-operative acetabular fracture which was then re-revised with TM augment, bone graft and large uncemented cup. Pre-op and post-op matched OHS scores were available for 60 hips(57%) with a mean improvement of 13 points. Radiographic analysis showed graft incorporation in all cases with no evidence of cup loosening. The mean vertical cup migration was 0.5mm (Range −5 to 7mm). No other complications were recorded. This study shows that reconstruction of large acetabular defects during revision THA using a combination of TM augments to contain the acetabulum along with IBG to preserve the bone stock and a cemented socket is a reliable and safe technique with low revision rates and satisfactory clinical and radiographic results. Long term studies are needed to assess the possibility of preservation and regeneration of bone stock

Aims. Our objective was describing an algorithm to identify and prevent vascular injury in patients with intrapelvic components. Methods. Patients were defined as at risk to vascular injuries when components or cement migrated 5 mm or more beyond the ilioischial line in any of the pelvic incidences (anteroposterior and Judet view). In those patients, a serial investigation was initiated by a CT angiography, followed by a vascular surgeon evaluation. The investigation proceeded if necessary. The main goal was to assure a safe tissue plane between the hardware and the vessels. Results. In ten at-risk patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and submitted to our algorithm, six were recognized as being high risk to vascular injury during surgery. In those six high-risk patients, a preventive preoperative stent was implanted before the orthopaedic procedure. Four patients needed a second reinforcing stent to protect and to maintain the vessel anatomy deformed by the intrapelvic implants. Conclusion. The evaluation algorithm was useful to avoid blood vessels injury during revision total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):859–866

Aims. Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G bone cement were introduced to replace the original cement Refobacin Palacos R in 2005. Both cements were assumed to behave in a biomechanically similar fashion to the original cement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the migration of a polished triple-tapered femoral stem fixed with either Refobacin Bone Cement R or Palacos R + G bone cement. Repeated radiostereometric analysis was used to measure migration of the femoral head centre. The secondary aims were evaluation of cement mantle, stem positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods. Overall, 75 patients were included in the study and 71 were available at two years postoperatively. Prior to surgery, they were randomized to one of the three combinations studied: Palacos cement with use of the Optivac mixing system, Refobacin with use of the Optivac system, and Refobacin with use of the Optipac system. Cemented MS30 stems and cemented Exceed acetabular components were used in all hips. Postoperative radiographs were used to assess the quality of the cement mantle according to Barrack et al, and the position and migration of the femoral stem. Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale were collected. Results. Median distal migration (y-axis) at two years for the Refobacin-Optivac system was -0.79 mm (-2.01 to -0.09), for the Refobacin-Optipac system was -0.75 mm (-2.16 to 0.20), and for the Palacos-Optivac system was -1.01 mm (-4.31 to -0.29). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Secondary outcomes did not differ statistically between the groups at the two-year follow-up. Conclusion. At two years, we found no significant differences in distal migration or clinical outcomes between the three groups. Our data indicate that Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G are comparable in terms of stable fixation and early clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):435–441

We report on a cadaveric study and early experience using patient specific drill guides to prevent cortex perforations and reduce the need for a trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA. Mimic software (Materialise) was used for 3D analysis of the cement mantle and cement plug. Based on the CT findings a Cannulated drill guide with the shape of the femoral stem was printed in medical graded nylon intraoperative findings and complications were recorded on videotape using a standard 5mm laparoscope for medullary inspection. Surgical Technique was to attain a pre-operative CT scan with MARS protocol of the proximal femur to evaluate the femoral stem positioning, the 3D anatomy of the cement mantle, the length of the cement plug and the quality of the surrounding bone. Subsequent a 3D printing of patient specific cannulated drill guide with the shape of the removed femoral component but an eccentric cannulation was made. Endoscopic inspection was performed of the inside of the cement mantle, then insertion of the autoclaved cannulated drill guide in the existing cement mantle. After perforation of the distal plug through the PSI drill guide using either a long drill or an ultrasound plug perforation tool (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw) the excessive cement was removed with standard available flexible femoral shaft reamers (Zimmer Biomet). Further laproscopic examination of the femoral canal performed to verify completeness of the cement removal. Results. CT scans with 3D reconstruction of the existing cement mantle is possible using Modern CT with MARS protocols. After the training on sawbones and cadaveric bones a predictable plug perforation was obtained in all clinical cases. There were no intraoperative cortex perforations and no intraoperative femoral fractures. Conclusion. CT scan analysis of femoral cement mantles together with patient specific drill guides are promising tools to reduce the risk of femoral perforation in revision total hip arthroplasty

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Occlusion of the femoral canal is an important step in cemented hip arthroplasty. The goal of occlusion is to allow cement pressurisation and prevent cement egress into the femoral diaphysis. There are numerous designs of cement plugs made out of different materials but there is no consensus or clinical guideline for the choice of cement restrictors. At our centre two types of plugs are used – autologous bone block from femoral canal and the gelatine C-plug (Depuy International). We conducted this study to evaluate the stability of these two plugs and their effect on quality of cementation. The purpose of our study was to assess retrospectively both the length of the “cement tail” i.e. the length of the cement column distal to the stem tip and the cement mantle quality in both groups. A retrospective comparative review was designed after approval from the local R & D department. Power analysis indicated that a minimum of 74 patients per group would be needed. A total of 203 consecutive patients were analysed, 89 received an autologous bone block and 114 had C-plugs. Apart from the plugs both the groups were treated similarly with regards to surgical approach, cementing and operative technique. Surgical technique was to achieve adequate pressurisation and a minimum length of cement tail. Immediate post-operative radiographs were used for analysis. The primary outcome measure was the length of the cement tail, i.e. the length of the cement column from the tip of the stem. The secondary outcome measure was the quality of cementing which was quantified using Barrack's grading. The data was tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The means of cement tail lengths in between the two groups were compared using the Wilcoxon ranked sum test. The cementation grades were compared using ANOVA. The correlation between the length of cement tail and the quality of cementation was calculated using ordinal regression. Both the groups were similar in terms of age, sex and primary diagnosis. The mean cement tail length was 6.42 (SE 0.71 mms; range-0–31) in the bone block group and 17.11 (SE-1.34 mms; range 0–65.7 mms) in the C-plug group. This difference was statistically significant (p< 0.0001). The proportion of patients with good quality of cementation (grade A) was significantly higher in the bone block group (80.6%) as compared to the C-plug group (56%) (p < 0.0001). There was a negative correlation between the length of the cement tail and the Barrack grade (rho=0.398), indicating that a short cement tail is associated with better quality cementation. Quality of cementation is of paramount importance in cemented hip arthroplasty. Revision surgery can be more difficult and higher risk in the presence of a long cement tail. We have shown that better quality cementation and shorter cement tails can be achieved with the cheapest of all options for canal occlusion, an autologous bone block and recommend its use

Aims. Highly polished stems with force-closed design have shown satisfactory clinical results despite being related to relatively high early migration. It has been suggested that the minimal thickness of cement mantles surrounding the femoral stem should be 2 mm to 4 mm to avoid aseptic loosening. The line-to-line cementing technique of the femoral stem, designed to achieve stem press-fit, challenges this opinion. We compared the migration of a highly polished stem with force-closed design by standard and line-to-line cementing to investigate whether differences in early migration of the stems occur in a clinical study. Methods. In this single-blind, randomized controlled, clinical radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study, the migration pattern of the cemented Corail hip stem was compared between line-to-line and standard cementing in 48 arthroplasties. The primary outcome measure was femoral stem migration in terms of rotation and translation around and along with the X-, Y-, and Z- axes measured using model-based RSA at three, 12, and 24 months. A linear mixed-effects model was used for statistical analysis. Results. Results from mixed model analyses revealed a lower mean retroversion for line-to-line (0.72° (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38° to 1.07°; p < 0.001), but no significant differences in subsidence between the techniques (-0.15 mm (95% CI -0.53 to 0.227; p = 0.429) at 24 months. Radiolucent lines measuring < 2 mm wide were found in three and five arthroplasties cemented by the standard and line-to-line method, respectively. Conclusion. The cemented Corail stem with a force-closed design seems to settle earlier and better with the line-to-line cementing method, although for subsidence the difference was not significant. However, the lower rate of migration into retroversion may reduce the wear and cement deformation, contributing to good long-term fixation and implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):19–26

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

Aims. To achieve the functional benefits of the direct anterior (DA) approach and the fixation benefits of cemented replacement, this study combined the two techniques posing the following questions: does the limited access of the DA approach adversely affect the cement technique?; and does such a cementing technique reduce the incidence of cementless complications?. Methods. A consecutive series of 341 patients (360 hips) receiving the DA approach between 2016 and 2018 were reviewed. There were 203 cementless stems and 157 cemented stems. Mean age was 75 years (70 to 86) in the cementless group and 76 years (52 to 94) in the cemented group, with 239 (70%) females in the whole series. Femoral complications were compared between the two groups. Mean follow-up was 1.5 years (0.1 to 4.4) for patients in the cementless group and 1.3 years (0.0 to 3.9) for patients in the cemented group. Results. The cementless group had a higher rate of femoral complications (8 vs 0; p = 0.011). There were two loose stems and six fractures, all requiring revision. Fractures occurred a mean 14.5 days (2 to 31) postoperatively and loosening at 189 days and 422 days postoperatively. Femoral cementing can be done using the DA approach safely and reduces the number of complications compared with a contemporary cementless series. Conclusion. A higher rate of early fractures and loosening occurred with cementless stems. This was not observed in our cemented stem cohort and cementing was safely accomplished through the DA approach. The modern femoral cementing process with the DA approach does not add to surgical complexity or time, has fewer early complications, and is a safer option for older patients compared to cementless femoral arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):33–37

Despite the earlier work on the bone cement interface in successful Charnley stems lasting 20 years, there is still controversy explaining success and failure of cemented stems. Is it possible to analyse cemented stems histo-pathologically over the whole length of the prosthesis, to show where loosening might start or where the osseous structure resists components' failure?. The purpose of this analysis was to develop histo-pathological procedures, to provide information about bony integration or fibrous encapsulation. This study took place over the past 12 years. Fourteen femoral stems from autopsies, 2 to 26 years post implant - Charnley, Exeter and Muller prosthesis. All clinically and radiologically sound, patients died for reasons unrelated to the implant. Sections were cut in a complete sequence and analysed using a new microscope, the HIIFL microscope, ZOW Munich; thin sections were processed using embedding in epoxy-resin and bloc-staining in alkaline fuchsine. The sequence of sections was performed using a wet-grinding cutting process, ZOW Munich. The analysis resulted in a very simple and unique experience. Independent of how long the implant was in place, there was no or nearly no radiolucent line in the X-ray. In defined compartments, surprisingly, cancellous bone was preserved and in many cases stiffened by bone cement. Bone to cement contacts without interposition of fibrous tissue. The findings might influence the operating techniques in the future. The results were fully coincident to findings in animal experiments of earlier work, including the secondary medullary cavity

Aims

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions.