Short-stem hip arthroplasty is gaining popularity as a method of treating hip arthritis in biologically younger patients. The potential benefit of using a short-stem is preservation of bone in the proximal femur for a future revision. We have compared the early clinical and radiological results of a short-stem hip arthroplasty versus a conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a standard length femoral prosthesis with particular focus on functional outcome. We evaluated a prospectively collected data on consecutive series of 249 patients, who underwent uncemented total hip arthroplasty at our institution. They were distributed into 2 groups: Group I, 125 patients received an uncemented short femoral stem (Mini Hip Arthroplasty (MHA), Corin, Cirencester) and Group II, 124 patients received a conventional uncemented femoral stem (Accolade, Stryker, Michigan) with mean follow up of 3.2 years (2–4). The characteristics of the two groups have been presented in Table I. Evaluation was based on plain radiographs performed at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, while their clinical status was assessed using the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1-year, 2-years and annually thereafter.Introduction
Methods
Hip replacement surgery is an effective treatment, however quantitative outcome does not necessarily delineate the true picture. It is important to triangulate data methods in order to ascertain important contextual factors that may influence patient perception. The aim of the current study was to explore the patient perception on resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and mini-hip arthroplasty (MHA) in a unique cohort where each patient has received a resurfacing on one side and a mini-hip on the contralateral side using both quantitative and qualitative measures (Fig. 1).Background
Aims
Hip arthroscopy is well established as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the native hip joint. However, its application in the symptomatic post-hip arthroplasty patient is still being explored. We have described the use of hip arthroscopy in symptomatic patients following total hip replacement, resurfacing hip arthroplasty and partial resurfacing hip arthroplasty in 24 patients (study group), and compared it with arthroscopy of the native hip of 24 patients.Background
Aims and Methods
We conducted a randomised, controlled trial to determine whether changing gloves at specified intervals can reduce the incidence of glove perforation and contamination in total hip arthroplasty. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. In the study group (25 patients), gloves were changed at 20-minute intervals or prior to cementation. In the control group (25 patients), gloves were changed prior to cementation. In addition, gloves were changed in both groups whenever there was a visible puncture. Only outer gloves were investigated. Contamination was tested by impression of gloved fingers on blood agar and culture plates were subsequently incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The number of colonies and types of organisms were recorded. Glove perforation was assessed using the water test. The incidence of perforation and contamination was significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group. Changing gloves at regular intervals is an effective way to decrease the incidence of glove perforation and bacterial contamination during total hip arthroplasty.
