Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

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

Reconstruction of massive acetabular bone defects in primary and revision THA is challenging for reconstructive joint surgeons. The use of porous metal augments is one of the options. The advantages of porous metal augments are easy to use, modularity and lack of resorption. We investigated the radiological results of porous metal augments used for massive acetabular bone defects in primary and revision THA. Forty-one hips in forty patients had porous metal augments between 2011 and 2016. Thirty of the procedures were revision arthroplasties and 11 were primary procedures (Crowe type III in 5 hips, Crowe type IV in 3, septic hip sequalae in 2 and RA in one). Four of the revisions were second-stage reimplantation after infection. The Paprosky classification for revision was 2B in 4 hips, 2C in one, 3A in 3 and 3B in 22. Regenerex augments were used in 39 hips and trabecular metal augments were used in 2. Thirty-six cups were cemented and 5 cups were uncemented. Mean follow-up was 37.6 months (range, 1–82). Radiographic findings of osteointegration between host bone and the porous metal augments were assessed. The presence or absence of radiolucent lines between cement or cup/host bone and augment/host bone interface was noted. Two revisions were performed due to infection, one month and 66 months after operation. The other implants were stable without any complications. Osteointegration between host bone and the porous metal augments were recognized in 36 hips. Radiolucent lines between cement/host bone interface, less than 1 mm in width, were visualized in 2 hips. Porous metal augments are convenient and our short-term results showed excellent radiological results for massive acetabular bone defects in primary and revision THA

In patients with primary hip replacement for previous infective arthritis the risk of recurrence of infection is of major concern. In addition, the safe time interval post infective arthritis for primary hip replacement is not known. Clinical & radiological results of consecutive series of 80 primary hip replacements performed for septic / tuberculous arthritis at Wrightington hospital from 1970 to 2008. Data was collected till latest follow up. Re-infection or revision for any reason was considered as primary end point for survivorship. Average age at primary hip replacement was 55.55 years (24 – 75). Mean follow up was 14.47 years (2–41). Twelve patients in septic hip group (n=42) needed revision out of which 6 (14%) were for infection. The survival rate for recent septic arthritis group (<10 years) was 60% at 7.5 years, whereas in old septic arthritis group (>10 years) it was 94.45% at 15.3 years, considering infection as end point. The survival rate was 60% for recent septic arthritis and 78.13% for old septic arthritis group over the same period of time considering revision for any reason as end point. In tuberculous group (n=38), the survival rate was 76.32% at 14.5 years of follow up, considering revision for any reason as end point. Significantly high re-infection rate in patients with recent septic arthritis was noted. No recurrence of infection in patients with old septic arthritis. No reactivation of tuberculosis in tuberculous arthritis group. This is the largest series with longest follow-up on primary total hip replacement for infective arthritis till date. Recent septic arthritis (<10Y) was a statistically high risk factor for recurrence of infection. Old septic arthritis is reasonably safe with 94.45% success rate at 15 years follow up. Old tuberculous arthritis is not a risk factor for hip replacement

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) with prior multiple failed surgery for reinfection represent a huge challenge for surgeons because of poor vascular supply and biofilm formation. This study aims to determine the results of single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion in treating this condition.

Hip arthroscopy is particularly attractive in children as it confers advantages over arthrotomy or open surgery, such as shorter recovery time and earlier return to activity. Developments in surgical technique and arthroscopic instrumentation have enabled extension of arthroscopy of the hip to this age group. Potential challenges in paediatric and adolescent hip arthroscopy include variability in size, normal developmental change from childhood to adolescence, and conditions specific to children and adolescents and their various consequences. Treatable disorders include the sequelae of traumatic and sports-related hip joint injuries, Legg–Calve–Perthes’ disease and slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and the arthritic and septic hip. Intra-articular abnormalities are rarely isolated and are often associated with underlying morphological changes. This review presents the current concepts of hip arthroscopy in the paediatric and adolescent patient, covering clinical assessment and investigation, indications and results of the experience to date, as well as technical challenges and future directions

A total of 31 patients, (20 women, 11 men; mean age 62.5 years old; 23 to 81), who underwent conversion of a Girdlestone resection-arthroplasty (RA) to a total hip replacement (THR) were compared with 93 patients, (60 women, 33 men; mean age 63.4 years old; 20 to 89), who had revision THR surgery for aseptic loosening in a retrospective matched case-control study. Age, gender and the extent of the pre-operative bone defect were similar in all patients. Mean follow-up was 9.3 years (5 to 18).

Pre-operative function and range of movement were better in the control group (p = 0.01 and 0.003, respectively) and pre-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) was greater in the RA group (p < 0.001). The post-operative clinical outcome was similar in both groups except for mean post-operative LLD, which was greater in the study group (p = 0.003). There was a significant interaction effect for LLD in the study group (p < 0.001). A two-way analysis of variance showed that clinical outcome depended on patient age (patients older than 70 years old had worse pre-operative pain, p = 0.017) or bone defect (patients with a large acetabular bone defect had higher LLD, p = 0.006, worse post-operative function p = 0.009 and range of movement, p = 0.005), irrespective of the group.

Despite major acetabular and femoral bone defects requiring complex surgical reconstruction techniques, THR after RA shows a clinical outcome similar to those obtained in aseptic revision surgery for hips with similar sized bone defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1478–84.

In this retrospective study we evaluated the proficiency of shelf autograft in the restoration of bone stock as part of primary total hip replacement (THR) for hip dysplasia, and in the results of revision arthroplasty after failure of the primary arthroplasty. Of 146 dysplastic hips treated by THR and a shelf graft, 43 were revised at an average of 156 months, 34 of which were suitable for this study (seven hips were excluded because of insufficient bone-stock data and two hips were excluded because allograft was used in the primary THR). The acetabular bone stock of the hips was assessed during revision surgery. The mean implant–bone contact was 58% (50% to 70%) at primary THR and 78% (40% to 100%) at the time of the revision, which was a significant improvement (p < 0.001). At primary THR all hips had had a segmental acetabular defect > 30%, whereas only five (15%) had significant segmental bone defects requiring structural support at the time of revision. In 15 hips (44%) no bone graft or metal augments were used during revision.

A total of 30 hips were eligible for the survival study. At a mean follow-up of 103 months (27 to 228), two aseptic and two septic failures had occurred. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the revision procedures demonstrated a ten-year survival rate of 93.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78 to 107) with clinical or radiological failure as the endpoint. The mean Oxford hip score was 38.7 (26 to 46) for non-revised cases at final follow-up.

Our results indicate that the use of shelf autografts during THR for dysplastic hips restores bone stock, contributing to the favourable survival of the revision arthroplasty should the primary procedure fail.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:777–81.

In this study of 41 patients, we used proteomic, Western blot and immunohistochemical analyses to show that several reactive oxygen species scavenging enzymes are expressed differentially in patients with primary osteoarthritis and those with non-loosening and aseptic loosening after total hip replacement (THR). The patients were grouped as A (n = 16, primary THR), B (n = 10, fixed THR but requiring revision for polyethylene wear) and C (n = 15, requiring revision due to aseptic loosening) to verify the involvement of the identified targets in aseptic loosening. When compared with Groups A and B, Group C patients exhibited significant up-regulation of transthyretin and superoxide dismutase 3, but down-regulation of glutathione peroxidase 2 in their hip synovial fluids. Also, higher levels of superoxide dismutase 2 and peroxiredoxin 2, but not superoxide dismutase 1, catalase and glutathione perioxidase 1, were consistently detected in the hip capsules of Group C patients.

We propose that dysregulated reactive oxygen species-related enzymes may play an important role in the pathogenesis and progression of aseptic loosening after THR.