Aims

Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions.

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.

Aims

Large acetabular bone defects encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) are challenging to restore. Metal constructs for structural support are combined with bone graft materials for restoration. Autograft is restricted due to limited volume, and allogenic grafts have downsides including cost, availability, and operative processing. Bone graft substitutes (BGS) are an attractive alternative if they can demonstrate positive remodelling. One potential product is a biphasic injectable mixture (Cerament) that combines a fast-resorbing material (calcium sulphate) with the highly osteoconductive material hydroxyapatite. This study reviews the application of this biomaterial in large acetabular defects.

Aims

Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction.

Aims

Young adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) largely have different indications for surgery, preoperative function, and postoperative goals compared to a standard patient group. The aim of our study was to describe young adult THA preoperative function and quality of life, and to assess postoperative satisfaction and compare this with functional outcome measures.

Aims

Our objective was describing an algorithm to identify and prevent vascular injury in patients with intrapelvic components.

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 determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

Aims

Reconstruction of the acetabulum after resection of a periacetabular malignancy is technically challenging and many different techniques have been used with varying success. Our aim was to prepare a systematic review of the literature dealing with these techniques in order to clarify the management, the rate of complications and the outcomes.

Peri- and sub-prosthetic fractures, or pathological fractures below an existing well-fixed femoral component, with or without an ipsilateral knee replacement, present a difficult surgical challenge.

We describe a simple solution, in which a custom-made prosthesis with a cylindrical design is cemented proximally to the stem of an existing, well-fixed femoral component. This effectively treats the fracture without sacrificing the good hip. We describe five patients with a mean age of 73 years (60 to 81) and a mean follow-up of 47 months (6 to 108).

The mean overlap of the prosthesis over the femoral component was 7.5 cm (5.5 to 10). There have been no mechanical failures, no new infections and no re-operations. We suggest that in highly selected cases, in which conventional fixation is not feasible, this technique offers a durable option and avoids the morbidity of a total femoral replacement.

The long-term results of grafting with hydroxyapatite granules for acetabular deficiency in revision total hip replacement are not well known. We have evaluated the results of revision using a modular cup with hydroxyapatite grafting for Paprosky type 2 and 3 acetabular defects at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed 49 acetabular revisions at a mean of 135 months (120 to 178). There was one type 2B, ten 2C, 28 3A and ten 3B hips. With loosening as the endpoint, the survival rate was 74.2% (95% confidence interval 58.3 to 90.1). Radiologically, four of the type 3A hips (14%) and six of the type 3B hips (60%) showed aseptic loosening with collapse of the hydroxyapatite layer, whereas no loosening occurred in type 2 hips. There was consolidation of the hydroxyapatite layer in 33 hips (66%). Loosening was detected in nine of 29 hips (31%) without cement and in one of 20 hips (5%) with cement (p = 0.03, Fisher’s exact probability test). The linear wear and annual wear rate did not correlate with loosening.

These results suggest that the long-term results of hydroxyapatite grafting with cement for type 2 and 3A hips are encouraging.

The treatment of substantial proximal femoral bone loss in young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is challenging. We retrospectively analysed the outcome of 28 patients (30 hips) with DDH who underwent revision total hip replacement (THR) in the presence of a deficient proximal femur, which was reconstructed with an allograft prosthetic composite. The mean follow-up was 15 years (8.5 to 25.5). The mean number of previous THRs was three (1 to 8). The mean age at primary THR and at the index reconstruction was 41 years (18 to 61) and 58.1 years (32 to 72), respectively. The indication for revision included mechanical loosening in 24 hips, infection in three and peri-prosthetic fracture in three.

Six patients required removal and replacement of the allograft prosthetic composite, five for mechanical loosening and one for infection. The survivorship at ten, 15 and 20 years was 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91 to 100), 75.5% (95% CI 60 to 95) and 75.5% (95% CI 60 to 95), respectively, with 25, eight, and four patients at risk, respectively. Additionally, two junctional nonunions between the allograft and host femur required bone grafting and plating.

An allograft prosthetic composite affords a good long-term outcome in the management of proximal femoral bone loss in revision THR in patients with DDH, while preserving distal host bone.

We have managed 27 patients (16 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 68.4 years (50 to 84), with failed total hip replacement and severe proximal femoral bone loss by revision using a distal fix/proximal wrap prosthesis. The mean follow-up was for 55.3 months (25 to 126). The mean number of previous operations was 2.2 (1 to 4). The mean Oxford hip score decreased from 46.2 (38 to 60) to 28.5 (17 to 42) (paired t-test, p < 0.001) and the mean Harris Hip score increased from 30.4 (3 to 57.7) to 71.7 (44 to 99.7) (paired t-test, p < 0.001). There were two dislocations, and in three patients we failed to eradicate previous infection. None required revision of the femoral stem.

This technique allows instant distal fixation while promoting biological integration and restoration of bone stock. In the short term, the functional outcome is encouraging and the complication rates acceptable in this difficult group of patients.

We assessed the outcome of patients with Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with femoral revision using an uncemented extensively porous-coated implant. A retrospective clinical and radiographic assessment of 22 patients with a mean follow-up of 33.7 months was performed. The mean time from the index procedure to fracture was 10.8 years. There were 17 patients with a satisfactory result. Complications in four patients included subsidence in two, deep sepsis in one, and delayed union in one. Concomitant acetabular revision was required in 19 patients. Uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral stems incorporate distally allowing stable fixation. We found good early survival rates and a low incidence of nonunion using this implant.

We have carried out in 24 patients, a two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for infection with massive bone loss. We used a custom-made, antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis as an interim spacer. Fifteen patients had acetabular deficiencies, eight had segmental femoral bone loss and one had a combined defect.

There was no recurrence of infection at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 7). A total of 21 patients remained mobile in the interim period. The mean Merle D’Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 7.3 points before operation to 13.2 between stages and to 15.8 at the final follow-up. The allograft appeared to have incorporated into the host bone in all patients. Complications included two fractures and one dislocation of the cement prosthesis.

The use of a temporary spacer maintains the function of the joint between stages even when there is extensive loss of bone. Allograft used in revision surgery after septic conditions restores bone stock without the risk of recurrent infection.