The posterior approach to the hip avoids violating abductors and has presumed functional advantages. The anterolateral approach risks abductor damage, but has reportedly lower dislocation rate.

To determine effects of surgical approach on function and dislocation after primary and revision THR 3274 primary THRs and 66 first time revision THRs were investigated from the arthroplasty database (2000–2008).

2682 (82%) primary THRs were via anterolateral approach, 592 (18%) by posterior. Post primary dislocation rate was 50/2682 (1.9%) for anterolateral and 26/592 (4.4%) for posterior. Posterior approach had significantly better Harris Hip Scores: 91 vs 88 (P = 0.000) and function: 40 vs 37 (P = 0.000). Of the 66 revisions THRs, 30 were anterolateral and 36 posterior. Dislocation rates were 2/30 (6.7%) and 4/36 (11.1%) respectively. There was no significant difference in Harris Hip Score or Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on revision surgery approach. However there was a significant difference in Harris Hip Function 1 year after revision based on the approach for primary surgery (Anterolateral 30 vs Posterior 37, P=0.008) and a similar trend in Harris Hip Score (Anterolateral 79 vs Posterior 85, P = 0.198) and patients who had posterior approach for both primary and revision had the best scores overall.

The clinical relevance of the modest, but statistically significant difference in Harris hip score after primary THR is unclear. That primary approach has an impact on function after revision suggests the posterior approach should be considered in younger patients likely to require revision in the future.

Revision hip surgery is reportedly rising inexorably yet not all units report this phenomenon. The outcome of 1143 consecutive Corin TaperFit primary hip arthroplasties (957 patients) performed between 1995 and 2010 is presented. The implants were cemented under pressurisation and combined the TaperFit stem with Ogee flanged cups. Data was gathered from local arthroplasty database and case note review of revised joints. 13 hips have been revised (1.1%). Cumulative prosthesis survival is 0.99 +/− 0.0. Two femoral stems were revised (0.2%); one at 6 months for sepsis, one at 14 days after dislodgment during reduction of dislocation. No revisions were undertaken for aseptic loosening of the stem or cup, nor for thigh pain. 32 patients (32 hips) ≥15 year follow up, 13 survive today and none have been revised (0%). Of the 471 with ≥10 year follow up, 38 were aged ≤50 at time of surgery and 1/38 has been revised to date (PLAD for dislocation). The strong population stability in this region, supported by independent investigation by Scottish Arthroplasty Project, endorses the accuracy of the data quoted. The low incidence of revision in this cohort, and absence of revision for aseptic loosening (mean follow up 8.03 years +/− SD 3.94; range 18 months to 16yrs 2 months), substantially supports the longevity and use of cemented, double-taper, polished, collarless femoral stems in combination with cemented polyethylene cups in primary hip arthroplasty in all patient age groups

Background. Impaction bone grafting with milled human allograft is the gold standard for replacing lost bone stock during revision hip surgery. Problems surrounding the use of allograft include cost, availability, disease transmission and stem subsidence (usually due to shear failure of the surrounding allograft). Aims. To investigate various polymers for use as substitute allograft. The ideal graft would be a composite with similar mechanical characteristics as allograft, and with the ability to form de novo bone. Methods. High and low molecular weight (MW) forms of three different polymers (polylactic acid (PLA), poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) and polycaprolactone (PCL)) were milled, impacted into discs, and then tested in a custom built shear testing rig, and compared to allograft. A second stage of the experiment involved the addition of skeletal stem cells (SSC) to each of the milled polymers, impaction, 8 days incubation, and then tests for cell viability and number, via fluorostaining and biochemical (WST-1, DNA) assays. Results. The shear strengths of both high/ low MW PLA, and high/low MW PLGA were significantly higher than those of milled allograft but high and low MW PCL was poor to impact, and had significantly lower shear strengths. Fluorostaining showed good cell survival on high MW PLA, high MW PCL and both high and low MW PLGA. These findings were confirmed on both DNA and WST-1 assays. Conclusions. High MW PLA as well as high and low MW PLGA performed well both in mechanical testing and cell compatibility studies. These three polymers are good contenders to produce a living composite for use as substitute human allograft in impaction bone grafting

Aims

Complex displaced osteoporotic acetabular fractures in the elderly are associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality. Surgical options include either open reduction and internal fixation alone, or combined with total hip arthroplasty (THA). There remains a cohort of severely comorbid patients who are deemed unfit for extensive surgical reconstruction and are treated conservatively. We describe the results of a coned hemipelvis reconstruction and THA inserted via a posterior approach to the hip as the primary treatment for this severely high-risk cohort.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.