Previously, radiostereometric analysis following hip revision performed using impacted morsellised allograft bone and a cemented Exeter stem has shown continuous subsidence of the stem for up to five years. It is not known whether the subsidence continues thereafter. In our study, 17 of 25 consecutive osteo-arthritic patients with aseptically loose stems who underwent first-time revision using impacted morsellised allograft bone and a cemented Exeter stem were followed by yearly radiostereometric examinations for nine years. The mean subsidence at six weeks was 1.1 mm (0.1 to 2.3), from six weeks to one year 1.3 mm (0 to 2.6), from one to five years 0.7 mm (0 to 2.0), and from five to nine years 0.7 mm (0.1 to 3.1). That from six weeks to nine years was 2.7 mm (0 to 6.4) (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.5). The Charnley pain score significantly improved after revision, and was maintained at nine years, but walking ability deteriorated slightly as follow-up extended. Of the eight patients who were not followed for nine years, two had early subsidence exceeding 11 mm. Our findings show that in osteo-arthritic patients who undergo revision for aseptic loosening of the stem using impacted morsellised allograft bone and a cemented Exeter stem, migration of the stem continues over nine years at a slower rate after the first year, but without clinical deterioration or radiological loosening

Aims. The Exeter short stem was designed for patients with Dorr type A femora and short-term results are promising. The aim of this study was to evaluate the minimum five-year stem migration pattern of Exeter short stems in comparison with Exeter standard stems. Methods. In this case-control study, 25 patients (22 female) at mean age of 78 years (70 to 89) received cemented Exeter short stem (case group). Cases were selected based on Dorr type A femora and matched first by Dorr type A and then age to a control cohort of 21 patients (11 female) at mean age of 74 years (70 to 89) who received with cemented Exeter standard stems (control group). Preoperatively, all patients had primary hip osteoarthritis and no osteoporosis as confirmed by dual X-ray absorptiometry scanning. Patients were followed with radiostereometry for evaluation of stem migration (primary endpoint), evaluation of cement quality, and Oxford Hip Score. Measurements were taken preoperatively, and at three, 12, and 24 months and a minimum five-year follow-up. Results. At three months, subsidence of the short stem -0.87 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to -0.67) was lower compared to the standard stem -1.59 mm (95% CI -1.82 to -1.36; p < 0.001). Both stems continued a similar pattern of subsidence until five-year follow-up. At five-year follow-up, the short stem had subsided mean -1.67 mm (95% CI -1.98 to -1.36) compared to mean -2.67 mm (95% CI -3.03 to -2.32) for the standard stem (p < 0.001). Subsidence was not influenced by preoperative bone quality (osteopenia vs normal) or cement mantle thickness. Conclusion. The standard Exeter stem had more early subsidence compared with the short Exeter stem in patients with Dorr type A femora, but thereafter a similar migration pattern of subsidence until minimum five years follow-up. Both the standard and the short Exeter stems subside. The standard stem subsides more compared to the short stem in Dorr type A femurs. Subsidence of the Exeter stems was not affected by cement mantle thickness. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):507–515

Aims. The primary aim of this study is to assess the survival of the uncemented hydroxyapatite (HA) coated Trident II acetabular component as part of a hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a cemented Exeter stem. The secondary aims are to assess the complications, joint-specific function, health-related quality of life, and radiological signs of loosening of the acetabular component. Methods. A single-centre, prospective cohort study of 125 implants will be undertaken. Patients undergoing hybrid THA at the study centre will be recruited. Inclusion criteria are patients suitable for the use of the uncemented acetabular component, aged 18 to 75 years, willing and able to comply with the study protocol, and provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria includes patients not meeting study inclusion criteria, inadequate bone stock to support fixation of the prosthesis, a BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , or THA performed for pain relief in those with severely restricted mobility. Results. Implant survival, complications, functional outcomes and radiological assessment up to ten years following index THA (one, two, five, seven, and ten years) will be performed. Functional assessment will include the Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire, and pain and patient satisfaction. Radiological assessment with assess for acetabula lucent lines, lysis, and loosening according to DeLee and Charnley zones. Conclusion. This study is part of a stepwise introduction of a new device to orthopaedic practice, and careful monitoring of implants should be carried out as part of the Beyond Compliance principles. The results of this study will provide functional, radiological, and survival data to either support the ongoing use of the HA acetabulum or highlight potential limitations of this new implant before wide adoption. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):782–790

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.

Although data on uncemented short stems are available, studies on cemented short-stemmed THAs are limited. These cemented short stems may have inferior long-term outcomes and higher femoral component fracture rates. Hence, we examined the long-term follow-up of cemented short Exeter stems used in primary THA. Within the Exeter stem range, 7 stems have a stem length of 125 mm or less. These stems are often used in small patients, in young patients with a narrow femoral canal or patients with anatomical abnormalities. Based on our local database, we included 394 consecutive cemented stems used in primary THA (n=333 patients) with a stem length ≤125 mm implanted in our tertiary referral center between 1993 and December 2021. We used the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry (LROI) to complete and cross-check the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to determine 20-year survival rates with stem revision for any reason, for septic loosening, for aseptic loosening and for femoral component fracture as endpoints. The proportion of male patients was 21% (n=83). Median age at surgery was 42 years (interquartile range: 30–55). The main indication for primary THA was childhood hip diseases (51%). The 20-year stem survival rate of the short stem was 85.4% (95% CI: 73.9–92.0) for revision for any reason and 96.2% (95%CI: 90.5–98.5) for revision for septic loosening. No stems were revised for aseptic femoral loosening. However, there were 4 stem fractures at 6.6, 11.6, 16.5 and 18.2 years of follow-up. The stem survival with femoral component fracture as endpoint was 92.7% (CI: 78.5–97.6) at 20 years. Cemented short Exeter stems in primary THA show acceptable survival rates at long-term follow-up. Although femoral component fracture is a rare complication of a cemented short Exeter stem, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of its incidence and possible risk factors

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) started collecting data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 1987. Very long-term results of implants for THA are scarce. We aimed to show long-term results for the three most used femoral stems, operated from 1987. We included the uncemented Corail femoral stem (n=66,309) and the cemented Exeter stem (n=35,050) both of which are currently in frequent use. In addition, we included the Charnley stem (n=32,578, in use until 2014). To ensure comparable conditions, stems fixated with low viscosity cement and stems revised due to infections were excluded. Differences in risk of revision (all reasons and stem revisions) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses with adjustment for possible confounding from age, sex and diagnosis (OA, other). Stem revision was defined as a revision caused by loosening of the stem, dislocation, osteolysis in the femur, or periprosthetic femur fracture, and in which the femoral component was removed or exchanged. The median and max follow-up for Corail, Exeter and Charnley were 6.3 (33.1), 8.0 (34.2) and 13.1 (34.3) respectively. Thirty years survival estimates for Corail, Exeter and Charnley stems were 88.6% (CI:85.8–90.9%), 86.7% (83.7–89.2%) and 87.1% (85.4–88.5%) respectively with stem revision as endpoint, and 56.1% (CI:53.1–59.1%), 73.3% (70.5–76.1%) and 80.2% (78.4–82.0%) with all THA revisions as endpoint. Compared to the Corail, the Exeter (HRR=1.3, CI:1.2–1.4) and the Charnley (HRR=1.9, CI:1.7–2.1) had a significant higher risk of stem revision. Women 75 years and older had better results with the cemented stems. Analyses accounting for competing risk from other causes of revision did not alter the findings. The uncemented Corail stem performed well in terms of stem revisions for stem-related revision causes compared to two frequently used cemented stems with very long follow-up. The differences between the three stems were small

The MAKO Robotic arm is a haptic robotic system that can be used to optimise performance during total hip arthroplasty (THA). We present the outcome of the first 40 robotic cases performed in an NHS foundation trust along with the technique of performing robotic THA in our unit. Forty consecutive patients undergoing robotic THA (rTHA) were compared to a case matched group of patients undergoing manual THA (m-THA). 2:1 blinded case matching was performed for age, sex, implants used (Trident uncemented socket and cemented Exeter stem, Stryker Mahwah, NJ, US) and surgeon grade. Comparisons were made for radiological positioning of implants, including leg length assessment, and patient reported functional outcome (PROMS). Pre- and post-operative radiographs were independently analysed by 2 authors. All patients underwent THA for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. No significant difference between groups was identified for post-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) although pre-operatively a significantly higher LLD was highlighted on the MAKO group, likely due to patient selection. Significantly lower post-operative socket version was identified in the MAKO cohort although no difference in post-operative cup inclination was noted. However, there was significantly larger variance in post-op LLD (p=0.024), cup version (p=0.004) and inclination (p=0.05) between groups indicating r-THA was significantly less variable (Levene's test for homogeneity of variance). There was no significant difference in the number of cases outside of Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for inclination (p=0.469), however, there were significantly more cases outside Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for version (12.5% vs 40.3%, p=0.002) in the m-THA group. We report the commencement of performance of MAKO robotic THA in an NHS institution. No problems with surgery were reported during our learning curve. Robotic THA cases had less variability in terms of implant positioning suggesting that the MAKO robot allows more accurate, less variable implant positioning with fewer outliers. Longer term follow-up of more cases is needed to identify whether this improved implant positioning has an effect on outcomes, but the initial results seem promising

To determine if any notable differences between a cemented Thompson stem hemiarthroplasty and a cemented Exeter stem hemiarthroplasty (ETS), 200 patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture were randomised between the two prosthesis. Surviving patients were followed-up for one year by a nurse blinded to the treatment allocation. The mean age of patients was 84 years and 13% were male. There were no differences between groups for the length of surgery, need for blood transfusion or hospital stay. Implant related complications were three minor operative fractures of the femur in each group. Two patients in the Thompson group had dislocation of the prosthesis requiring revision surgery and one further patient in the Thompson group had late acetabular wear requiring conversion to a total hip replacement. One further patient in the Thompson group had cement retained in the acetabulum. In total therefore only three patients, all in the Thompson group, which required revision surgery. Easy of surgery was assessed subjectively by the surgeon and reported to be easier for the ETS group (p=0.0002). During follow-up there was no significant difference in the degree of residual pain between groups. Conclusions are that the cemented Exeter stem hemiarthroplasty has some advantages over the traditional cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty

Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two institutions, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral cement in selected cases for septic hip revision surgery. Between February 2010 and September 2019, 89 patients with prosthetic hip infection underwent first or single stage procedures leaving the distal femoral cement in situ and performing a cement-in-cement revision. The mean patient age was 72.0 years (24–92). The median time from the last arthroplasty procedure was 29.0 months (1–294). 81 patients underwent revision using a cemented Exeter stem, 7 patients received an articulating spacer, and one patient underwent excision arthroplasty with the distal cement left in situ. Patients received clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean of 42.8 months (range 11.0–120.1 months). Oxford hip scores were collected from each institution's existing databases. 9 patients (10.1%) died within one year of surgery. No deaths were directly related to joint infection or the surgery. One patient was lost to follow up before one year. Of the remainder, 7 patients (8.9%) required further procedures for infection and were therefore considered to be treatment failures. 6 patients (7.6%) underwent planned second stage procedures with no recurrence of infection. 7 patients (8.9%) had further surgery for non-infective reasons. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of infection free survival at one year was 93.7% (95% CI 88.4 to 99.0%). No patients underwent revision for stem loosening. Oxford hip scores were available at over one year postoperatively for 51 patients with a mean score of 30.6, and a mean gain of 11.9. In our combined cohort of patients, cement-in-cement revision had an infection eradication rate of 91.1%. Patient selection is crucial, and the procedure can only be performed when there is a well-fixed cement mantle. However, when strict criteria are followed, this technique offers potential significant benefits to surgeons performing this challenging surgery, and more importantly the patients undergoing them

The aim of this randomised controlled study was to compare functional and radiological outcomes between modern cemented and uncemented hydroxyapatite coated stems after one year in patients treated surgically for a fracture of the femoral neck. A total of 141 patients aged > 65 years were included. Patients were randomised to be treated with a cemented Exeter stem or an uncemented Bimetric stem. The patients were reviewed at four and 12 months. The cemented group performed better than the uncemented group for the Harris hip score (78 vs 70.7, p = 0.004) at four months and for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assesment Questionnaire dysfunction score at four (29.8 vs 39.2, p = 0.007) and 12 months (22.3 vs 34.9, p = 0.001). The mean EQ-5D index score was better in the cemented group at four (0.68 vs 0.53, p = 0.001) and 12 months (0.75 vs 0.58, p = < 0.001) follow-up. There were nine intra-operative fractures in the uncemented group and none in the cemented group. . In conclusion, our data do not support the use of an uncemented hydroxyapatite coated stem for the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1475–80

Bone impaction grafting of the femur is associated with more complications when segmental defects are present. The effect of segmental defect repair on initial stem stability was studied in an in vitro study with fresh frozen goat femora. A standardized medial segmental defect was reconstructed using a cortical strut or a metal mesh. As controls we used intact femora and femora with a non-reconstructed defect. In all four groups impacted bone grafting was performed in combination with a cemented Exeter stem. Each group contained five femora. Reconstructions were dynamically loaded up to 1500N. Migration was measured with Roentgen Stereo-photogrammetric Analysis. All cases with a non-reconstructed segmental defect failed into excessive varus rotation. None of the femora with a reconstructed defect failed. Cortical struts and metal meshes were equally effective in creating a stable stem construction (varus rotation 2.89±2.27 and 2.27±0.57, respectively). Reconstructions with a metal mesh were more reproducible, although the obtained stability was significantly lower (p< 0.01) when compared to impaction grafting in an intact femur (varus rotation 0.58±0.36). Besides, structural grafts may negatively influence the revascularization of the underlying impacted grafts in contrast to an open wire mesh. So, an in vivo study of 12 goats was done. A standardized medial wall defect was reconstructed with a strut or a mesh in six goats per group. In all femora impaction grafting was performed in combination with a cemented Exeter stem. After six weeks the femora were harvested. A high rate of peri-prosthetic fractures was found (43% and 29% for the strut and mesh groups, respectively). Histological and micro-radiological examination showed different revascularization patterns for both reconstruction techniques. In the strut group revascularized graft was found at the edges of the defect. In the mesh group fibrous tissue and blood vessels penetrated through the mesh and a superficial zone of revascularized grafts was found. Segmental defect reconstruction with a strut reduced the amount of revascularized grafts medially behind the strut (p=0.004). This may interfere with the stability of the stem in the first period after surgery and the incorporation of the impacted grafts on the long-term. We would recommend segmental defect reconstruction with a mesh. A regime of unloading and long-stem prostheses should be used, irrespective of the reconstruction technique

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different. In the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The author's personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The author's current indication for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is an extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems, unfortunately, may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however, it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines state that cemented stems with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of > 3B should be used for hemiarthroplasty when treating an intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. These recommendations are based on studies in which most, if not all stems, did not hold such a rating. . This case-control study compared the outcome of hemiarthroplasty using a cemented (Exeter) or uncemented (Corail) femoral stem. These are the two prostheses most commonly used in hip arthroplasty in the UK. Data were obtained from two centres; most patients had undergone hemiarthroplasty using a cemented Exeter stem (n = 292/412). Patients were matched for all factors that have been shown to influence mortality after an intracapsular fracture of the neck of the femur. Outcome measures included: complications, re-operations and mortality rates at two, seven, 30 and 365 days post-operatively. Comparable outcomes for the two stems were seen. . There were more intra-operative complications in the uncemented group (13% vs 0%), but the cemented group had a greater mortality in the early post-operative period (n = 6). There was no overall difference in the rate of re-operation (5%) or death (365 days: 26%) between the two groups at any time post-operatively. This study therefore supports the use of both cemented and uncemented stems of proven design, with an ODEP rating of 10A, in patients with an intracapsular fracture of the neck of the femur. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:94–9

Introduction. There is sparse evidence regarding the survivorship beyond 20 years of both uncemented and cemented hip replacements in patients 50 years and under. We report a unique series reviewing 20–26 year follow-up of patients ≤50 years with cemented Exeter THR. Materials and Methods. We reviewed the survivorship with clinical and radiological outcomes of 138 consecutive cemented THR's in 113 patients ≤50 years. The pre-op diagnoses included Osteoarthritis (30%), DDH (25%), RA (9%) and Post traumatic OA (5%), and 31% of patients had previous surgery to the hip. All patients were followed up at 5 year intervals and there was no patient lost to follow up. Results. Mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 41.6 (18–50) years. Mean follow up time was 21.6 (20–26) years. There were 93 survivors and 14 deceased patients, with 31 patients needing revision THR. The reasons for revision surgery included 28 cases revised for aseptic loosening of the cup, one patient with Gaucher's disease who developed localised lysis around the stem, one broken stem, and one case with infection. There were no cases of aseptic loosening of the Exeter stem. There were no radiologically loose stems in the surviving or deceased patients at the time of follow-up although 2 patients had radiological evidence of loosening of the cemented cup. Survivorship at 22 years was 75% at for revision for all causes and 98 % for revision of the stem aseptic loosening or lysis. Conclusion. The Exeter cemented THR performs very well in the young patient population, with very favourable survivorship of the Exeter stem in particular, though with less favourable survivorship of these historic cemented cups. This study provides good evidence for the increased use of the cemented Exeter stem in this population group

The number of cemented femoral stems implanted in the United States continues to slowly decrease over time. Approximately 10% of all femoral components implanted today are cemented, and the majority are in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The European experience is quite different, in the UK, cemented femoral stems account for approximately 50% of all implants, while in the Swedish registry, cemented stems still account for the majority of implanted femoral components. Recent data demonstrating some limitations of uncemented fixation in the elderly for primary THA, may suggest that a cemented femoral component may be an attractive alternative in such a group. Two general philosophies exist with regards to the cemented femoral stem: Taper slip and Composite Beam. There are flagship implants representing both philosophies and select designs have shown excellent results past 30 years. A good femoral component design and cementing technique, however, is crucial for long-term clinical success. The authors' personal preference is that of a “taper slip” design. The cemented Exeter stem has shown excellent results past 30 years with rare cases of loosening. The characteristic behavior of such a stem is to allow slight subsidence of the stem within the cement mantle through the process of cement creep. One or two millimeters of subsidence in the long-term have been observed with no detrimental clinical consequences. There have been ample results in the literature showing the excellent results at mid- and long-term in all patient groups. The authors' current indications for a cemented stem include the elderly with no clear and definitive cutoff for age, most likely in females, THA for femoral neck fracture, small femoral canals such as those patients with DDH, and occasionally in patients with history of previous hip infection. Modern and impeccable cement technique is paramount for durable cemented fixation. It is important to remember that the goal is interdigitation of the cement with cancellous bone, so preparing the femur should not remove cancellous bone. Modern technique includes distal plugging of the femoral canal, pulsatile lavage, drying of the femoral canal with epinephrine or hydrogen peroxide, retrograde fill of the femoral canal with cement with appropriate suction and pressurization of the femoral cement into the canal prior to implantation of the femoral component. The dreaded “cement implantation syndrome” leading to sudden death can be avoided by appropriate fluid resuscitation prior to implanting the femoral component. This is a extremely rare occurrence today with reported mortality for the Exeter stem of 1 in 10,000. A cemented femoral component has been shown to be clinically successful at long term. Unfortunately, the art of cementing a femoral component has been lost and is rarely performed in the US. The number of cemented stems unfortunately may continue to go down as it is uncommonly taught in residency and fellowship, however it might find a resurgence as the limits of uncemented fixation in the elderly are encountered. National joint registers support the use of cemented femoral components, and actually demonstrate higher survivorship at short term when compared to all other uncemented femoral components. A cemented femoral component should be in the hip surgeons' armamentarium when treating patients undergoing primary and revision THA

We evaluated all cases involving the combined use of a subtrochanteric derotational femoral shortening osteotomy with a cemented Exeter stem performed at our institution. With severe developmental dysplasia of the hip an osteotomy is often necessary to achieve shortening and derotation of the proximal femur. Reduction can be maintained with a 3.5 mm compression plate while the implant is cemented into place. Such a plate was used to stabilise the osteotomy in all cases. Intramedullary autograft helps to prevent cement interposition at the osteotomy site and promotes healing. There were 15 female patients (18 hips) with a mean age of 51 years (33 to 75) who had a Crowe IV dysplasia of the hip and were followed up for a mean of 114 months (52 to 168). None was lost to follow-up. All clinical scores were collected prospectively. The Charnley modification of the Merle D’Aubigné-Postel scores for pain, function and range of movement showed a statistically significant improvement from a mean of 2.4 (1 to 4), 2.3 (1 to 4), 3.4 (1 to 6) to 5.2 (3 to 6), 4.4 (3 to 6), 5.2 (4 to 6), respectively. Three acetabular revisions were required for aseptic loosening; one required femoral revision for access. One osteotomy failed to unite at 14 months and was revised successfully. No other case required a femoral revision. No postoperative sciatic nerve palsy was observed. Cemented Exeter femoral components perform well in the treatment of Crowe IV dysplasia with this procedure

Restoration of an anatomical hip centre frequently requires limb lengthening, which increases the risk of nerve injury in the treatment of Crowe 4 Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH). Prospective evaluation of the use of subtrochanteric derotational femoral shortening with a cemented Exeter stem. 15 female patients (18 hips – 3 bilateral) with a mean age at time of operation of 51 years followed-up for a mean of 114 months (range 52 to 168). 16 cemented and 2 uncemented acetabular components were implanted. Exeter cemented DDH stems were used in all cases. No patient lost to follow up. All 18 Crowe IV hips reviewed. Charnley-D’Aubigne-Postel score for pain, function and range of movement were improved from a mean of 2-2-3 to 5-4-5 respectively. One osteotomy failed to unite at 14 months and revised successfully. Clinical healing was achieved at a mean of 6 months while radiological evidence of union at a mean of 9 months. The mean length of the excised segment was 3 cm and the mean true limb lengthening was 2 cm. 3.5mm DCP plate with unicortical screws was used to reduce the osteotomy, and intramedullary autografting performed in all cases. Mean subsidence was 1 mm and no stem was found to be loose at the latest follow up. No sciatic nerve palsy was observed and there were no post-operative dislocations. Cemented Exeter femoral components perform well in the treatment of Crowe IV DDH with when a subtrochanteric derotational shortening osteotomy (SDSO) was necessary. A transverse osteotomy is necessary to achieve derotation and reduction can be maintained with a DCP plate. Intramedullary autografting prevents cement interposition at the osteotomy site and promotes healing

Introduction. Despite evidence of long term survival of cemented femoral stem prostheses, studies have shown concerns in the longevity of the cemented sockets. This has led to a rise in the use of uncemented and hybrid implants (with uncemented cup and cemented stem) without long term studies to determine evidence for their use. We aimed to assess whether there is any difference in clinical outcome between cemented and non-cemented acetabular fixation in elderly patients. Patients and Methods. Between February 2001 and August 2006 186 patients over 72 years of age were prospectively randomised to receive either a cemented Exeter cup or a HA coated press fit cementless cup. Both groups received a cemented Exeter stem. The patients were assessed pre-operatively and reviewed at 6 weeks, 6 months and yearly in a research clinic, by an independent observer. Outcome measures were the Merle D'Aubigné, Postel, Oxford Hip and Visual analogue pain scores. The implants were also assessed radiographically and all complications were recorded. Results. During the trial 97 patients (mean age 79.13, range 72-90) were randomised to receive a cemented cup (60 right: 37 left) and 89 (mean age 77.65, range 72-95) an uncemented ABG II cup. There was a mean follow-up of 57.6 months (max 9 years) . Statistically there was no significant difference between the two methods of acetabular fixation in outcome measures but radiologically there was a significant difference in wear and loosening (p< 0.001) with cemented cups wearing at a mean of 0.35mm/yr and uncemented cups 0.08mm/yr. Conclusion. Both methods of fixation were demonstrated to have a good outcome with low complication rates. There would appear to be a significant difference in wear rate and osteolysis in this age group between the methods of fixation up to 9 years

Introduction: Acetabular loosening can limit long-term success of total hip replacement. There are at least 62 different prosthesis designs available in the UK, many of which have no long term results. Revision surgery is expensive, challenging and potentially dangerous. There is still currently debate about the best method of acetabular fixation, in particular, regarding the use of press fit devices in elderly osteoporotic bone. Our study aims to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in outcome between cemented and non-cemented acetabular fixation in this group of patients. Methods: Patients over 72 years of age were prospectively randomised to receive either a cemented Exeter cup or a HA coated press fit cementless cup. Both groups received a cemented Exeter stem. The patients were assessed pre-operatively and reviewed at 6 weeks, 6 months and yearly in a research clinic, by an independent observer. Outcome measures were the Merle D’Aubignon Postel, Oxford Hip and Visual analogue pain scores. The implants were also assessed radiographically and all complications were recorded. Results: To date 151 patients have been recruited into the trial. 2 year data is available for 69 patients. There were no differences in satisfaction, pain or hip scores between the groups. There have been no major surgical complications. In particular, there have been no failures of acetabular fixation, dislocations or deep infections. Discussion: There have been no failures in either group. Although there is insufficient data at this stage to reject our null hypothesis, there is no early evidence for concern in using cementless cups in elderly patients

There has been controversy about the practice of mixing femoral and acetabular implants from different manufacturers in total hip replacement (THR). We studied the clinical outcomes of over 1500 patients in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study (EPOS) who underwent primary THR with a cemented Exeter stem (Stryker) but with various acetabular components. This was a prospective non-randomised multicentre study. Patient reported hip scores (Oxford Hip Score (OHS)) were measured before operation and at 1 and 2 years post operatively. The choice of acetabular implant was at the surgeons’ discretion. 982 patients had reached four year follow up. Six types of acetabular component were examined (Exeter, Exeter Contemporary, Duraloc (all Stryker), Charnley (DePuy), Cenator (Corin), and Trilogy (Zimmer)). Patients who received a Charnley cup were found to have worse pre-operative status (significantly higher OHS) than those receiving other cups (especially those receiving Exeter cups) (p< 0.01). Post operatively, this difference continued, with the absolute OHS value remaining greater (i.e. worse clinical result) for the Charnley cup at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. The association of poor pre-op status with worse post-op result was anticipated. However, when the clinical benefit of surgery (i.e. the improvement in OHS between pre-op and post-op) was assessed, there was no significant difference between the various implants at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. These results demonstrate that initial clinical benefit of surgery does not differ between patients receiving acetabular implants from varying manufacturers when the Exeter stem is used. These patients will be followed further to determine whether such “mixing and matching” results in differences in longer term outcomes