Many tumors metastasise to bone, therefore, pathologic fracture and impending pathologic fractures are common reasons for orthopedic consultation. Having effective treatment strategies is important to avoid complications, and relieve pain and preserve function. Thorough pre-operative evaluation is recommended for medical optimization and to ensure that the lesion is in fact a metastasis and not a primary bone malignancy. For impending fractures, various scoring systems have been proposed to determine the risk of fracture, and therefore the need for prophylactic stabilisation. Lower score lesions can often be treated with radiation, while more problematic lesions may require internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation is generally preferred due to favorable biomechanics. Arthroplasty may be required for lesions with massive bony destruction where internal fixation attempts are likely to fail. Radiation may also be useful postoperatively to minimise construct failure due to tumor progression.

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. Methods. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. Results. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). Conclusion. HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):924–932

Osteolysis, fractures, and bone destruction caused by osteomyelitis or metastasis can cause large bone defects and present major challenges during acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty. We sought to evaluate the survivorship and radiographic outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction consisting of a polyethylene liner (semi-constrained) embedded in cement filling bone defect(s) reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation (HiRISC). Retrospective chart review of 59 consecutive acetabular reconstructions as described above performed by 4 surgeons in a single institution (10/18/2018-1/5/2023) was performed. After radiographs and operative reports were reviewed, cases were classified following the Paprosky classification for acetabular defects. Paprosky type 1 cases (n=26) were excluded, while types 2/3 (n=33) were included for analysis. Radiographic loosening was evaluated up to latest follow-up. Mean follow-up was: 487 days (range, 20–1,539 days). Out of 33 cases, 2 (6.1%) cases were oncological (metastatic disease) and 22 (66.7%) had deep infection diagnosis (i.e., periprosthetic joint infection [PJI] or septic arthritis). In total, 7 (21.2%) reconstructions were performed on native acetabula (3 septic, 4 aseptic). At a mean follow-up of 1.3 years, 5 (15.2%) constructs were revised: 4 due to uncontrolled infection (spacer exchange) and 1 for instability. On follow-up radiographs, only 1 non-revised construct showed increased radiolucencies, but no obvious loosening. When compared to patients with non-revised constructs, those who underwent revision (n=5) were significantly younger (mean 73.8 vs. 60.6 years, p=0.040) and had higher body mass index (24.1 vs. 31.0 Kg/m. 2. , p=0.045), respectively. Sex, race, ethnicity, American-Society-of-Anesthesiologist classification, infection diagnosis status (septic/aseptic), and mean follow-up (449.3 vs. 695.6 days, respectively, p=0.189) were not significantly different between both groups. HiRISC construct may be a viable short-term alternative to more expensive implants to treat large acetabular defects, particularly in the setting of PJI. Longer follow up is needed to establish long term survivorship

The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to identify the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection. This study follows up on a smaller study in the same unit in 2019 where an initial 152 cases were scrutinised. In this follow up study we examined 1,361 consecutive patients over a 16-year period whom had undergone revision hip replacement in a tertiary orthopaedic centre for any reason excluding primary bone tumour or malignant metastasis. All patients had tissue sampling for histopathological analysis performed by consultant histopathologists with a specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. The presence of bacteria in greater than 50% of samples sent for microbiological analysis in each patient was used as the gold standard diagnostic comparator for infection. This was then compared with the histology report for each patient. After excluding 219 patients with incomplete data and 1 sample rejection, 1,141 cases were examined. Microbiology confirmed infection in 132 cases (prevalence of infection 11.04%) and histopathology analysis suggested infection in 171 cases. Only 64 cases with confirmed infection in more than 50% of microbiology samples had concurrent diagnosis of infection on histological analysis (5.60% of total; PPV 51.20%). Furthermore, microbiology analysis confirmed infection in 62 cases where histological analysis failed to identify infection (5.43% of total; False negative rate 49.21%). Overall, histopathology analysis was seen to have a good specificity of 93.99% but poor sensitivity of 50.79%. We believe that this is the largest series in the literature and is somewhat unique in that all histology analysis was performed by consultant histopathologists with specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. Based on the costs incurred by this additional investigation our experience does not support routine sampling for histological analysis in revision hip arthroplasty. This is a substantial paradigm shift from current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but would equate to a substantial cost saving

The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to assess for the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection. Our study examines 152 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip replacement in our centre for all reasons, excluding malignant neoplasm or metastasis. We reviewed the cases from a prospectively collated database, comparing microbiology results with histology results. Both microscopic and macroscopic analysis by specialist musculoskeletal histopathologist was included in our study. We found 17 (11.2%) patients had cultured bacteria from intra-operative samples. Eight patients (5.3%) had histological findings interpreted as infection. Only one patient who had macroscopic and microscopic histology findings suggestive of infection also had culture results that identified a pathogen. Furthermore, the macroscopic analyses by the histopathologist suggested infection in nine patients. Only one patient with positive culture in greater than 2 samples had histological features of infection. Of the 4 patients who were found to have 3 or more samples where an organism was identified only one had histological features of infection. This represents 25% sensitivity when using histology to analyse samples for infection. Of the 8 patients who had both macroscopic and microscopic features of infection only 1 patients cultured bacteria in more than 3 samples (PPV 12.5%). Our experience does not support the routine sampling for histology in revision hip replacement. We suggest it is only beneficial in cases where infection is suspected or where a multi-procedure, staged revision is performed and the surgeon is planning return to theatre for the final stage. This is a substantial paradigm shift from the current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but will equate to a substantial cost saving

Conventional cemented acetabular components are reported to have a high rate of failure when implanted into previously irradiated bone. We recommend the use of a cemented reconstruction with the addition of an acetabular reinforcement cross to improve fixation. We reviewed a cohort of 45 patients (49 hips) who had undergone irradiation of the pelvis and a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an acetabular reinforcement cross. All hips had received a minimum dose of 30 Gray (Gy) to treat a primary nearby tumour or metastasis. The median dose of radiation was 50 Gy (Q1 to Q3: 45 to 60; mean: 49.57, 32 to 72). . The mean follow-up after THA was 51 months (17 to 137). The cumulative probability of revision of the acetabular component for a mechanical reason was 0% (0 to 0%) at 24 months, 2.9% (0.2 to 13.3%) at 60 months and 2.9% (0.2% to 13.3%) at 120 months, respectively. One hip was revised for mechanical failure and three for infection. Cemented acetabular components with a reinforcement cross provide good medium-term fixation after pelvic irradiation. These patients are at a higher risk of developing infection of their THA. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:177–84

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.

The Kent hip is a distally-locked femoral stem which was developed to address severe proximal bone loss, severe bony deformity and peri-prosthetic fracture. We reviewed the results of 145 consecutive Kent hips implanted into 141 patients between 1987 and 2000. The indications for implantation were aseptic loosening (75 hips), septic loosening (two), peri-prosthetic and prosthetic fracture (37), severe bony deformity (24), and fracture through a proximal femoral metastasis (seven). The median time to full weight-bearing after surgery was two days and the mean length of follow-up was 5.1 years (2 to 15). Further revisions were required for 13 femoral stems. With removal of the stem for any reason as an end-point, the cumulative survival at five, ten and 15 years was 93%, 89% and 77%, respectively. In patients aged ≥ 70 years, the cumulative survival at 15 years was 92%, compared with 68% in those aged < 70 years. Because of these findings, we recommend the use of interlocking stems in patients aged ≥ 70 years, particularly in those with a peri-prosthetic fracture, for whom alternative methods are limited. Outcome scores and survival data, compared with other systems, indicate that the Kent hip should be used with caution in younger patients

A 65-year-old man presented with a painful hip five years after a cemented replacement. Histological examination of a biopsy taken from tissue surrounding the femoral implant showed infiltration of a squamous-cell carcinoma. Further investigation revealed a primary growth in the left lung. This rare example of a metastasis in relation to a joint replacement illustrates the necessity for histological examination of the tissue adjacent to a loose prosthesis

Aims

This study sought to establish the prevalence of the cross over sign (COS) and posterior wall sign (PWS) in relation to the anterior pelvic plane (APP) in an asymptomatic population through reliable and accurate 3D-CT based assessment.

While an increasing amount of arthroplasty articles report comorbidity measures, none have been validated for outcomes. In this study, we compared commonly used International Classification of Diseases-based comorbidity measures with re-operation rates after total hip replacement (THR). Scores used included the Charlson, the Royal College of Surgeons Charlson, and the Elixhauser comorbidity score. We identified a nationwide cohort of 134 423 THRs from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Re-operations were registered post-operatively for up to 12 years. The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox’s proportional hazards regression, and we used C-statistics to assess each measure’s ability to predict re-operation. Confounding variables were age, gender, type of implant fixation, hospital category, hospital implant volume and year of surgery.

In the first two years only the Elixhauser score showed any significant relationship with increased risk of re-operation, with increased scores for both one to two and three or more comorbidities. However, the predictive C-statistic in this period for the Elixhauser score was poor (0.52). None of the measures proved to be of any value between two and 12 years. They might be of value in large cohort or registry studies, but not for the individual patient.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1184–91.

We present an update of the clinical and radiological results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafts and a cemented acetabular component in 58 patients, at a mean follow-up of 22.2 years (20 to 25). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for the acetabular component with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 75% at 20 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 62 to 88) when 16 hips were at risk. Excluding two revisions for septic loosening at three and six years, the survivorship at 20 years was 79% (95% CI 67 to 93). With further exclusions of one revision of a well-fixed acetabular component after 12 years during a femoral revision and two after 17 years for wear of the acetabular component, the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 87% at 20 years (95% CI 76 to 97). At the final review 14 of the 16 surviving hips had radiographs available. There was one additional case of radiological loosening and four acetabular reconstructions showed progressive radiolucent lines in one or two zones.

Acetabular revision using impacted large morsellised bone chips (0.5 cm to 1 cm in diameter) and a cemented acetabular component remains a reliable technique for reconstruction, even when assessed at more than 20 years after surgery.

We examined the association between patient-related factors and the risk of initial, short- and long-term implant failure after primary total hip replacement. We used data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2002, which gave us a total of 36 984 patients. Separate analyses were carried out for three follow-up periods: 0 to 30 days, 31 days to six months (short term), and six months to 8.6 years after primary total hip replacement (long term). The outcome measure was defined as time to failure, which included re-operation with open surgery for any reason.

Male gender and a high Charlson co-morbidity index score were strongly predictive for failure, irrespective of the period of follow-up. Age and diagnosis at primary total hip replacement were identified as time-dependent predictive factors of failure. During the first 30 days after primary total hip replacement, an age of 80 years or more and hip replacement undertaken as a sequela of trauma, for avascular necrosis or paediatric conditions, were associated with an increased risk of failure. However, during six months to 8.6 years after surgery, being less than 60 years old was associated with an increased risk of failure, whereas none of the diagnoses for primary total hip replacement appeared to be independent predictors.