Aims. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) has extended its scope to report on hospital, surgeon and implant performance. Data linkage of the NJR to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC) has previously evaluated data quality for hip primary procedures, but did not assess revision records. . Methods. We analysed metal-on-metal hip revision procedures performed between 2003 and 2013. A total of 69 929 revision procedures from the NJR and 929 revised pairs of components from the LIRC were included. Results. We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. Discussion. This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. Take home message: Prospective Registry – retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:33–9

Introduction. Large acetabular bone defects caused by aseptic loosening are common. Reconstruction of large segmental defects can be challenging. Various implants and operative techniques have been developed to allow further acetabular revision in cases where bone stock is poor. Reconstitution of bone stock is desirable especially in younger patients. The aim of the study was to review the clinical and radiological results of hip revision with structural acetabular bone grafts using fresh frozen allograft and cemented components. Method. Between 1990 and 2014, 151 first time revisions for aseptic acetabular loosening with acetabular reconstruction with a fresh frozen structural allograft and cemented components were performed at our hospital. Graft dimensions, number of screws used and socket coverage by the graft were measured on the post-operative AP radiograph. Follow-up radiographs were analysed for socket loosening, quality of graft union, graft and graft resorption. Results. At a mean follow-up of 7 years 11 months (range 0 – 22), 5 patients had died and 24 hips revised (15.9%). One hundred and three hips had a follow-up greater than 5 years. The reasons for re-revision were infection in 1, recurrent dislocation in 4, aseptic stem loosening in 4 and aseptic cup loosening in 21 (13.9%). Survival analysis with revision for aseptic cup loosening as the endpoint was 80.2% at 10 years. Conclusion. The results using solid allograft to reconstruct the acetabulum are encouraging with a follow-up to 22 years. Structural allograft is a good option to reconstruct segmental defects of the acetabulum at revision surgery and we especially advocate its use to reconstitutes bone stock in younger patients

The Oxford hip score (OHS) at 6 months and five years of less than 27 has previously been reported as having a 5.2% chance of requiring revision of their total hip arthroplasty (THA) within 2 years. We determined whether the OHS obtained at 10 years after surgery would be a suitable screening tool in lieu of clinic visits to detect patients requiring closer monitoring.

We reviewed data from the NZ Joint Registry between January 1999 and December 2016. OHS at 10 years was available for 5,165 non-revised THA patients. Patients were separated into four categories based on their OHS: 3,483 (67%) scored 42–48, 1,023 (20%) scored 34–41, 373 (7%) scored 27–33, and 286 (5%) scored 0–26.

For patients with a 6-month OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 1.3% in the 42–48 group, 2.5% in the 34–41 group, 4.6% in the 27–33 group, and 10.2 % in the 0–27 group. If only patients with a grading of 33 or less were offered clinical follow-up, 659/5165 patients (12.7%) would require evaluation and of these, 46/659 (7%) could be expected to require revision within two years. Of those patients with an OHS > 34 not evaluated, only a small number, 72/4506 (1.6%), might require a revision.

The OHS at 10 years of patients with a THA who have a grading less than 27 is a much stronger predictor of revision than OHS at 6 months or 5 years. Use of the 10 year OHS as a screening tool for THA requires evaluation of only one in eight patients, with the chance of missing 1 in 63 patients not followed up who might require a revision.

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. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Introduction

The impact of pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs) within the second decade is unknown. We investigated: (1) the incidence and risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumour revision following MoMHR at 15-years follow-up, and (2) whether risk factors were gender specific.

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

The duration of systemic antibiotics following first-stage surgery is contentious. Our Institution's philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, high concentration of targeted antibiotics through cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. In the presence of significant soft tissue infection or microbiological diagnostic uncertainty; systemic antibiotics may be prescribed for 5 days whilst awaiting tissue culture results. The aim of this study was to assess the success of our philosophy for two-stage hip revision. A retrospective review of our Institution's prospective database was performed to identify all intended two-stage hip revision procedures for PJI. All patients had a confirmed PJI as per MSIS 2013 criteria, minimum 5-years follow up and outcomes according to the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool; then grouped into “successful” or “unsuccessful” (suppressive antibiotics, further revision for infection, death within 1 year). 383 intended two-stage hip revisions were identified; of which 299 met our inclusion criteria, in 289 patients (6 repeat ipsilateral two-stage, 4 bilateral two-stage). Median follow up was 10.7 years (IQR 6.3 – 15.0). 258 (86%) patients proceeded to 2. nd. stage surgery. 91% success rate was observed for those patients who underwent reimplantation, although dropping to 86% when including the patients who did not proceed to second stage. The median duration of post-operative systemic antibiotics was 5 days (IQR 5–9). No significant difference was observed in patients who received either; < / = 48 hours (86%; n=70) compared to > 48 hours antibiotics (86%; n=229; p=0.96) or </= 5 days of antibiotics (88%; n=202) compared to > 5 days antibiotics (82%; p=0.38). A significant majority had gram-positive (88%) infection with 30% being polymicrobial. Greater success rates were observed with two-stage exchange or gram-positive PJI (86%); than for gram-negative PJI (81%) and polymicrobial infection (74%) (p=0.36). Fungal PJI was observed to have a significantly reduced rate of success (n=3; 33%; p=0.03). Aggressive surgical debridement with high concentration, targeted local antibiotic delivery at time of first stage to manage PJI of the hip provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship and reduced hospital costs

With the approval of our institute, we reviewed all the robot-assisted hip revision during October 2019 and August 2021. MAKO joint arthroplasty system was used to perform the hip revision surgery. Seventy-one robot-assisted hip revision cases were included. Cup revisions were carried out in 68 patients while stem revisions were also carried out in 68 patients. Three types of registration techniques (extra acetabular bone surface based, liner based, metal shell based or cage surface based) on the acetabular side. The extra acetabular bone surface was the commonest used for registration (48/70, 68.6%, mean accuracy 0.37mm), followed by liner surface (11/70, 15.7%, mean accuracy 0.36mm), acetabulum cup (10/70, 14.3%, mean accuracy 0.37mm), and cage surface (1/70, 1.4%, accuracy 0.40mm). We succeeded cup registration and robotic arm guided cup insertion in all the cases. The average cup inclination and anteversion after revision were 40.87°±4.39° and 13.87°±4.24°, respectively. Cups in 62 cases (62/68, 91.2%) were within the Lewinnek safe zone while in 55 cases (55/68, 80.9%) were within the Callanan safe zone. The Mako robot-assisted system could bring favorable cup reconstruction in hip revision with acceptable surgical time and blood loss. Accurate registration could be achieved by different methods

Pelvic discontinuity is a separation through the acetabulum with the ilium displacing superiorly and the ischium/pubis displacing inferiorly. This is a biomechanically challenging environment with a high rate of failure for standard acetabular components. The cup-cage reconstruction involves the use of a highly porous metal cup to achieve biological bone ingrowth on both sides of the pelvic discontinuity and an ilioischial cage to provide secure fixation across the discontinuity and bring the articulating hip center to the correct level. The purpose of this study was to report long term follow up of the use of the cup-cage to treat pelvic discontinuity. All hip revision procedures between January 2003 and January 2022 where a cup-cage was used for a hip with a pelvic discontinuity were included in this retrospective review. All patients received a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage or TMARS cage (Zimmer-Biomet Inc.). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on pre-operative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Fifty-seven cup-cages in 56 patients were included with an average follow-up of 6.25 years (0.10 to 19.98 years). The average age of patients was 72.09 years (43 to 92 years) and 70.2% of patients were female. The five year Kaplan-Meier survival was 92.0% (95% CI 84.55 to 99.45) and the ten year survival was 80.5% (95% CI 58.35 to 102.65). There were 5 major complications that required revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (3 infections and 2 mechanical failures). There were 9 complications that required re-operation without revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (5 dislocations, 3 washouts for infection and one femoral revision for aseptic loosening). In our hands the cup-cage reconstruction has provided a reliable tool to address pelvic discontinuity with an acceptable complication rate

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. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

The aim of this study is to examine the differences in long-term mortality rates between infected and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in a single specialist centre over an 18-year period. Retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent rTHA at our tertiary centre between 2003 and 2020 was carried out. Revisions were classified as infected or aseptic. We identified patients’ age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade (ASA) and body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 5 years, 10 years and over the whole study period at 18 years. Death was identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data for the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to death. Where two-stage revision techniques were used of the management of infected cases, these were grouped as a single revision episode for the purpose of analysis. In total, 1138 consecutive hip revisions were performed on 1063 patients (56 bilateral revisions – aseptic, 10 Excision arthroplasties – infection, 9 – Debridement, Antibiotics, Implant retention (DAIR) with 893 aseptic revisions in 837 patients (78.7%) and 245 infected revisions in 226 patients (21.3%). Average age of the entire study cohort was 71.0 (24–101) with 527 female (49.6%). Average age of the infection and aseptic cohorts was 68.8 and 71.5 respectively. Revisions for infection had higher mortality rates throughout the three time points of analysis. Patients’ survivorship for infected vs aseptic revisions was; 77.8% vs 87.7% at 5 years, 62.8% vs 76.5% at 10 years and 62.4% vs 72.0% at 18 years. The unadjusted 10-year risk ratio of death after infected revision was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.28–1.95) compared to aseptic revisions. rTHA performed for infection is associated with significantly higher long-term mortality at all time points compared to aseptic revision surgery

Custom acetabular components have become an established method of treating massive acetabular bone defects in hip arthroplasty. Complication rates, however, remain high and migration of the cup is still reported. Ischial screw fixation (IF) has been demonstrated to improve mechanical stability for non-custom, revision arthroplasty cup fixation. We hypothesise that ischial fixation through the flange of a custom acetabular component aids in anti-rotational stability and prevention of cup migration. Electronic patient records were used to identify a consecutive series of 49 custom implants in 46 patients from 2016 to 2022 in a unit specializing in complex joint reconstruction. IF was defined as a minimum of one screw inserted into the ischium passing through a hole in a flange on the custom cup. The mean follow-up time was 30 months. IF was used in 36 cups. There was no IF in 13 cups. No difference was found between groups in age (68.9 vs. 66.3, P = 0.48), BMI (32.3 vs. 28.2, P = 0.11) or number of consecutively implanted cups (3.2 vs. 3.6, P = 0.43). Aseptic loosening with massive bone loss was the primary indication for revision. There existed no difference in Paprosky grade between the groups (P = 0.1). 14.2% of hips underwent revision and 22.4% had at least one dislocation event. No ischial fixation was associated with a higher risk of cup migration (6/13 vs. 2/36, X2 = 11.5, P = 0.0007). Cup migration was associated with an increased risk for all cause revision (4/8 vs. 3/38, X2 = 9.96, P = 0.0016, but not with dislocation (3/8 vs. 8/41, X2 = 1.2, P = 0.26). The results suggest that failure to achieve adequate ischial fixation, with screws passing through the flange of the custom component into the ischium, increases the risk of cup migration, which, in turn, is a risk factor for revision

Aims. Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors. Methods. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip PJI who underwent a staged THA revision performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. Results. Our staged exchange practice shows poor results, which means a 42% mechanical spacer failure rate, and a 20% recurrent infection rate over the two years average follow-up period. Moreover, we found a high rate of spacer dislocation (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to the previous literature. Our findings stress that the majority of spacer complications and failures is reflecting a population with high comorbid burden, highlighted by the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Lee score associations, as well as the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney, or hepatic chronic conditions. Conclusion. Our experience of a two-stage hip exchange revision noted important complication rates associated with high failure rates of polymethylmethacrylate spacers. These findings must be interpreted in the light of the patient’s comorbidity profiles, as the elective population for staged exchange has an increasing comorbid burden leading to poor results. In order to provide better results for this specific population, our conclusion suggests that comparative strategy studies are required to improve our therapeutic indication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):485–494

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty performed in case of infection has been considered during many years the gold standard for treatment of chronic infection. Nevertheless, during the last decade, concerns have risen regarding its safety and its efficiency. The purpose of our study was to, first investigate the spacer complications, then to analyze their risks factors. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection who underwent a two stage exchange revision arthroplasty performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluation were performed using the Student and Mann-Whitney tests. Our study confirms the hypothesis of a high-risk strategy with 42% of patients who had a mechanical spacer failure and a 20% recurrence of infection during the average two years period of follow-up. We found a high rate of spacer migration (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to literature. The most important finding was that the majority of spacer complications and failures were found in a population with high medical comorbidities as highlighted by the ASA, Charlson and Lee score associations, as well as with the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney or hepatic chronic conditions. This study showed that a two-stage hip exchange revision is a high-risk procedure regarding complications and mechanical failures of PMMA spacers. In patients with high medical comorbidities, other strategies may be considered and interdisciplinary cooperation with other facilities are needed to identify and control each risk factor

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Aims

Pelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Aims

The aims of the study were to report for a cohort aged younger than 40 years: 1) indications for HRA; 2) patient-reported outcomes in terms of the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS); 3) dislocation rate; and 4) revision rate.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Although CT is considered the benchmark to measure femoral version, 3D biplanar radiography (hipEOS) has recently emerged as a possible alternative with reduced exposure to ionizing radiation and shorter examination time. The aim of our study was to evaluate femoral stem version in postoperative total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and compare the accuracy of hipEOS to CT. We hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in calculated femoral stem version measurements between the two imaging methods.