Aims

It may not be possible to undertake revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of massive loss of acetabular bone stock using standard cementless hemispherical acetabular components and metal augments, as satisfactory stability cannot always be achieved. We aimed to study the outcome using a reconstruction cage and a porous metal augment in these patients.

This study reports the clinical outcome of reconstruction of deficient abductor muscles following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), using a fresh–frozen allograft of the extensor mechanism of the knee. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 11 consecutive patients with a severe limp because of abductor deficiency which was confirmed on MRI scans. The mean age of the patients (three men and eight women) was 66.7 years (52 to 84), with a mean follow-up of 33 months (24 to 41).

Following surgery, two patients had no limp, seven had a mild limp, and two had a persistent severe limp (p = 0.004). The mean power of the abductors improved on the Medical Research Council scale from 2.15 to 3.8 (p < 0.001). Pre-operatively, all patients required a stick or walking frame; post-operatively, four patients were able to walk without an aid. Overall, nine patients had severe or moderate pain pre-operatively; ten patients had no or mild pain post-operatively.

At final review, the Harris hip score was good in five patients, fair in two and poor in four.

We conclude that using an extensor mechanism allograft is relatively effective in the treatment of chronic abductor deficiency of the hip after THA when techniques such as local tissue transfer are not possible.

Longer-term follow-up is necessary before the technique can be broadly applied.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1050–5.

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis.

At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock.

In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040).

The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24.

The use of ilioischial cage reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity has been replaced by the Trabecular Metal (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) cup-cage technique in our institution, due to the unsatisfactory outcome of using a cage alone in this situation. We report the outcome of 26 pelvic discontinuities in 24 patients (20 women and four men, mean age 65 years (44 to 84)) treated by the cup-cage technique at a mean follow-up of 82 months (12 to 113) and compared them with a series of 19 pelvic discontinuities in 19 patients (18 women and one man, mean age 70 years (42 to 86)) treated with a cage at a mean follow-up of 69 months (1 to 170). The clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship of the groups were compared. In all, four of the cup-cage group (15%) and 13 (68%) of the cage group failed due to septic or aseptic loosening. The seven-year survivorship was 87.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71 to 103) for the cup-cage group and 49.9% (95% CI 15 to 84) for the cage-alone group (p = 0.009). There were four major complications in the cup-cage group and nine in the cage group. Radiological union of the discontinuity was found in all successful cases in the cup-cage group and three of the successful cage cases. Three hips in the cup-cage group developed early radiological migration of the components, which stabilised with a successful outcome.

Cup-cage reconstruction is a reliable technique for treating pelvic discontinuity in mid-term follow-up and is preferred to ilioischial cage reconstruction. If the continuity of the bone graft at the discontinuity site is not disrupted, early migration of the components does not necessarily result in failure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:195–200.

The conventional method for reconstructing acetabular bone loss at revision surgery includes using structural bone allograft. The disadvantages of this technique promoted the advent of metallic but biocompatible porous implants to fill bone defects enhancing initial and long-term stability of the acetabular component. This paper presents the indications, surgical technique and the outcome of using porous metal acetabular augments for reconstructing acetabular defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:103–8.

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.

Trabecular metal (TM) augments are a relatively new option for reconstructing segmental bone loss during acetabular revision. We studied 34 failed hip replacements in 34 patients that were revised between October 2003 and March 2010 using a TM acetabular shell and one or two augments. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 69.3 years (46 to 86) and the mean follow-up was 64.5 months (27 to 107). In all, 18 patients had a minor column defect, 14 had a major column defect, and two were associated with pelvic discontinuity. The hip centre of rotation was restored in 27 patients (79.4%). The Oxford hip score increased from a mean of 15.4 points (6 to 25) before revision to a mean of 37.7 (29 to 47) at the final follow-up. There were three aseptic loosenings of the construct, two of them in the patients with pelvic discontinuity. One septic loosening also occurred in a patient who had previously had an infected hip replacement. The augments remained stable in two of the failed hips. Whenever there was a loose acetabular component in contact with a stable augment, progressive metal debris shedding was evident on the serial radiographs. Complications included another deep infection treated without revision surgery. Good clinical and radiological results can be expected for bone-deficient acetabula treated by a TM cup and augment, but for pelvic discontinuities this might not be a reliable option.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:166–72.

In this study we present our experience with four generations of uncemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from Smith & Nephew: Tricon M, Tricon LS, Tricon II and Profix, focusing on the failure rates correlating with each design change. Beginning in 1984, 380 Tricon M, 435 Tricon LS, 305 Tricon 2 and 588 Profix were implanted by the senior author. The rate of revision for loosening was 1.1% for the Tricon M, 1.1% for the Tricon LS, 0.5% for the Tricon 2 with a HA coated tibial component, and 1.3% for the Profix TKA. No loosening of the femoral component was seen with the Tricon M, Tricon LS or Tricon 2, with no loosening seen of the tibial component with the Profix TKA. Regarding revision for wear, the incidence was 13.1% for the Tricon M, 6.6% for the Tricon LS, 2.3% for the Tricon 2, and 0% for the Profix. These results demonstrate that improvements in the design of uncemented components, including increased polyethylene thickness, improved polyethylene quality, and the introduction of hydroxyapatite coating, has improved the outcomes of uncemented TKA over time.

Purpose: Total hip arthroplasty in high riding congenital dislocation of the hip is a challenging procedure. In order to position the cup in the true acetabulum, femoral shortening osteotomy is often needed. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the results of two different methods of femoral shortening osteotomy.

Method: Thirty-one total hip arthroplasties were performed in 29 cases with high congenital hip dislocation. The acetabular cups were placed at true acetabulum and femoral shortening osteotomies of the femur were performed at proximal (14 hips, group 1) or distal femur (17 hips, group 2). After a mean follow up of 4.2 years, all 31 hips were evaluated with Harris Hip Scores and X-rays. Technical difficulties and complications were also reported.

Results: The mean increase in Harris Hip Score was 51 in group one and 52 in group two. There was one peroneal nerve palsy and one early dislocation in group 1, while there was no such perioperative complications in group 2. One acetabular cup and femoral stem were revised in group 1. Non-union happened in two cases of group 2. Special shape (cylindrical, non-tapered and longer than standard) femoral stems were needed for most proximal osteotomy patients.

Conclusion: Hip arthroplasty, with insertion of cup at true acetabulum and femoral shortening osteotomy in patients with high congenital dislocation, can produce good results. Either proximal or distal femoral shortening osteotomy could have advantages and disadvantages. Proximal shortening osteotomy is a more challenging procedure, may need special stem design, and could compromise stem fixation.