To date, the literature has not yet revealed superiority of Minimally Invasive (MI) approaches over conventional techniques. We performed a systematic review to determine whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty for (1) clinical and (2) functional outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of level 1 evidence to determine whether (3) minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches for clinical outcomes.

All studies comparing MI approaches to conventional approaches were eligible for analysis. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to throughout this study. Registries were searched using the following MeSH terms: ‘minimally invasive’, ‘muscle-sparing’, ‘THA’, ‘THR’, ‘hip arthroplasty’ and ‘hip replacement’. Locations searched included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU clinical trials register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (World Health Organisation).

Twenty studies were identified. There were 1,282 MI THAs and 1,351 conventional THAs performed.

Intermuscular MI approaches are equivalent to conventional THA approaches when considering all-cause revision, aseptic revision, infection, dislocation, fracture rates and functional outcomes. Meta-analysis of level 1 evidence supports this claim.

Hip resurfacing may be a useful surgical procedure when patient selection is correct and only implants with superior performance are used. In order to establish a body of evidence in relation to hip resurfacing, pseudotumour formation and its genetic predisposition, we performed a case-control study investigating the role of HLA genotype in the development of pseudotumour around MoM hip resurfacings.

All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacings performed in the history of the institution were assessed. A total of 392 hip resurfacings were performed by 12 surgeons between February 1st 2005 and October 31st 2007. In all cases, pseudotumour was confirmed in the preoperative setting on Metal Artefact Reduction Sequencing (MARS) MRI. Controls were matched by implant (ASR or BHR) and absence of pseudotumour was confirmed on MRI. Blood samples from all cases and controls underwent genetic analysis using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) assessing for the following alleles of 11 HLA loci (A, B, C, DRB1, DRB3/4/5, DQA1, DQB1, DPB1, DPA1). Statistical significance was determined using a Fisher's exact test or Chi-Squared test given the small sample size to quantify the clinical association between HLA genotype and the need for revision surgery due to pseudotumour.

Both groups were matched for implant type (55% ASR, 45% BHR in both the case and control groups). According to the ALVAL histological classification described by Kurmis et al., the majority of cases (63%, n=10) were found to have group 2 histological findings. Four cases (25%) had group 3 histological findings and 2 (12%) patients had group 4 findings. Of the 11 HLA loci analysed, 2 were significantly associated with a higher risk of pseudotumour formation (DQB1*05:03:01 and DRB1*14:54:01) and 4 were noted to be protective against pseudotumour formation (DQA1*03:01:01, DRB1*04:04:01, C*01:02:01, B*27:05:02).

These findings further develop the knowledge base around specific HLA genotypes and their role in the development of pseudotumour formation in MoM hip resurfacing. Specifically, the two alleles at higher risk of pseudotumour formation (DQB1*05:03:01 and DRB1*14:54:01) in MoM hip resurfacing should be noted, particularly as patient-specific genotype-dependent surgical treatments continue to develop in the future.

The benefits of HXLPE in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been as evident as total hip arthroplasty (THA). A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of highly-crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) on TKA outcomes compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE) is described.

All studies comparing HXLPE with CPE for primary TKA were included for analysis. The minimum dataset included revision rates, indication for revision, aseptic component loosening and follow-up time. The primary outcome variables were all-cause revision, aseptic revision, revision for loosening, radiographic component loosening, osteolysis and incidence of radiolucent lines. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative functional knee scores. A random-effects meta-analysis allowing for all missing data was performed for all primary outcome variables.

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 2,234 knees (1,105 HXLPE and 1,129 CPE). The combined mean follow-up for all studies was 6 years. The aseptic revision rate in the HXLPE group was 1.02% compared to 1.97% in the CPE group. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision (p = 0.131), aseptic revision (p = 0.298) or revision for component loosening (p = 0.206) between the two groups. Radiographic loosening (p = 0.200), radiolucent lines (p = 0.123) and osteolysis (p = 0.604) was similar between both groups. Functional outcomes were similar between groups.

The use of HXLPE in TKA yields similar results for clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared to CPE at midterm follow-up. HXLPE does not confer the same advantages to TKA as seen in THA.

Increased femoral head size reduces the rate of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners in THA there has been a trend towards using larger size femoral heads in relatively smaller cup sizes, theoretically increasing the risk of liner fracture, wear, or aseptic loosening. Short to medium follow-up studies have not demonstrated a negative effect of using thinner HXLPE liners. However, there is concern that these thinner liners may prematurely fail in the long-term, especially in those with thinner liners. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival and revision rates of HXLPE liners in primary THA, as well as the effect of liner thickness on these outcomes. We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between the different liner thicknesses.

We performed a retrospective database analysis from a single center of all primary total hip replacements using HXLPE liners from 2010 and earlier, including all femoral head sizes. All procedures were performed by fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. Patient characteristics, implant details including liner thickness, death, and revisions (all causes) were recorded. Patients were grouped for analysis for each millimeter of PE thickness (e.g. 4.0-4.9mm, 5.0-5.9mm). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were estimated with all-cause and aseptic revisions as the endpoints.

A total of 2354 patients (2584 hips) were included (mean age 64.3 years, min-max 19-96). Mean BMI was 29.0 and 47.6% was female. Mean follow-up was 13.2 years (range 11.0-18.8). Liner thickness varied from 4.9 to 12.7 mm. Seven patients had a liner thickness <5.0mm and 859 had a liner thickness of <6.0mm. Head sizes were 28mm (n=85, 3.3%), 32mm (n=1214, 47.0%), 36mm (n=1176, 45.5%), and 40mm (n=109, 4.2%), and 98.4% were metal heads. There were 101 revisions, and in 78 of these cases the liner was revised. Reason for revision was instability/dislocation (n=34), pseudotumor/aseptic lymphocyte-dominant vasculitis associated lesion (n=18), fracture (n=17), early loosening (n=11), infection (n=7), aseptic loosening (n=4), and other (n=10). When grouped by liner thickness, there were no significant differences between the groups when looking at all-cause revision (p=0.112) or aseptic revision (p=0.116).

In our cohort, there were no significant differences in all-cause or aseptic revisions between any of the liner thickness groups at long-term follow-up. Our results indicate that using thinner HXPE liners to maximize femoral head size in THA does not lead to increased complications or liner failures at medium to long term follow-up. As such, orthopedic surgeons can consider the use of larger heads at the cost of liner thickness a safe practice to reduce the risk of dislocation after THA when using HXLPE liners.

The demand for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has grown significantly in recent years. The two major fixation methods for stems in revision TKA include cemented and ‘hybrid’ fixation. We explore the optimal fixation method using data from recent, well-designed comparative studies.

We performed a systematic review of comparative studies published within the last 10 years with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. To allow for missing data, a random-effects meta-analysis of all available cases was performed. The odds ratio (OR) for the relevant outcome was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The effects of small studies were analyzed using a funnel plot, and asymmetry was assessed using Egger's test. The primary outcome measure was all-cause failure. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause revision, aseptic revision and radiographic failure.

There was a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems when compared to cemented stems (p = 0.006) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87). Heterogeneity was 4.3% and insignificant (p = 0.39). There was a trend toward superior hybrid performance for all other outcome measures including all-cause re-revision, aseptic re-revision and radiographic failure.

Recent evidence suggests a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems in revision TKA. There is also a trend favoring the use of hybrid stems for all outcome variables assessed in this study. This is the first time a significant difference in outcome has been demonstrated through systematic review of these two modes of stem fixation. We therefore recommend the use, where possible, of hybrid stems in revision TKA.

With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), orthopaedic surgeons have moved towards using larger femoral heads at the cost of thinner liners to decrease the risk of instability. Several short and mid-term studies have shown minimal liner wear with the use HXLPE liners, but the safety of using thinner HXPLE liners to maximize femoral head size remains uncertain and concerns that this may lead to premature failure exist. Our objective was to analyze the outcomes for primary THA done with HXLPE liners in patients who have a 36-mm head or larger and a cup of 52-mm or smaller, with a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Additionally, linear and volumetric wear rates of the HXLPE were evaluated in those with a minimum of seven-year follow-up. We hypothesized that there would be minimal wear and good clinical outcome.

Between 2000 and 2010, we retrospectively identified 55 patients that underwent a primary THA performed in a high-volume single tertiary referral center using HXLPE liners with 36-mm or larger heads in cups with an outer diameter of or 52-mm or smaller. Patient characteristics, implant details including liner thickness, death, complications, and all cause revisions were recorded. Patients that had a minimum radiographic follow-up of seven years were assessed radiographically for linear and volumetric wear. Wear was calculated using ROMAN, a validated open-source software by two independent researchers on anteroposterior X-rays of the pelvis.

A total of 55 patients were identified and included, with a mean age of 74.8 (range 38.67 - 95.9) years and a mean BMI of 28.98 (range 18.87 - 63-68). Fifty-one (94.4%) of patients were female. Twenty-six (47.7%) patients died during the follow-up period. Three patients were revised, none for liner wear, fracture or dissociation. Twenty-two patients had a radiographic follow-up of minimum seven years (mean 9.9 years, min-max 7.5 –13.7) and were included in the long-term radiographic analysis. Liner thickness was 5.5 mm at 45 degrees in all cases but one, who had a liner thickness of 4.7mm, and all patients had a cobalt-chrome head. Cup sizes were 52mm (n=15, 68%) and 50mm (n=7, 32%). Mean linear liner wear was 0.0470 mm/year (range 0 - 0.2628 mm) and mean volumetric wear was 127.69 mm3/year (range 0 - 721.23 mm3/year).

Using HXLPE liners with 36-mm heads or bigger in 52-mm cups or smaller is safe, with low rates of linear and volumetric wear in the mid to long-term follow-up. Patients did not require revision surgery for liner complications, including liner fracture, dissociation, or wear. Our results suggest that the advantages of using larger heads should outweigh the potential risks of using thin HXLPE liners.

The benefit of using acetabular screws in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned in recent years. The disadvantages of using screws include increased operative time, risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures and metal ware breakage. Recent large registry studies have reported that screws do not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening or the presence of osteolysis. Other studies have even described an increased risk of aseptic acetabular loosening with the selective use of screws. We report findings from a multicentre cohort study.

This large cohort study compared clinical outcomes between primary acetabular components that were inserted with and without screws. Independent variables included the presence (or absence) of screws, the total number of screws used and the cumulative screw length (CSL). Outcome measures included all-cause revision, acetabular component revision and acetabular component loosening. Statistical software (Stata/IC 13.1 for Mac [64-bit Intel]) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. A p-value < 0 .05 taken to be significant.

There were 4,583 THAs performed in total. Screws were used in 15.9% (n=733). At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the all-cause revision rate in the screw cohort was 1.5% compared to 0.83% in the no screw cohort (p=0.085). There was no difference in acetabular component revision rates for screws (3/733, 0.41%) versus no screws (12/3,850, 0.31%) (p=0.439). The rate of acetabular loosening noted during the time of revision surgery was significantly higher when screws were used in the index procedure (2/733, 0.2%) compared to the no screw cohort (1/3,850, 0.02%) (p=0.017). There was no difference in outcomes when stratifying by the number of screws used or the cumulative screw length.

Primary acetabular components do not require screws for fixation. All cause revision rates and acetabular component revision rates are comparable for the screw and the no screw cohorts. The rate of acetabular component loosening, as observed during revision surgery, is significantly higher when screws are used in the index total hip replacement.

Fully constrained liners are used to treat recurrent dislocations or patients at high risk after total hip replacements. However, they can cause significant morbidities including recurrent dislocations, infections, aseptic loosening and fractures. We examine long term results of 111 patients with tripolar constrained components to assess their redislocation and failure rate.

The purpose of this study was to assess survivorship, complications and functional outcomes at a minimum 10 years after the constrained tripolar liners used in our institute.

We retrospectively identified 111 patients who had 113 revision tripolar constrained liners between 1998 and 2008. Eighty-nine were revised due to recurrent dislocations, 11 for pseudotumor with dysfunctional abductors, and 13 for periprosthetic infection with loss of soft tissue stabilizers. All patients had revision hip arthroplasty before the constrained liner was used: 13 after the first revision, 17 after the second, 38 after the third, and 45 had more than 3 revisions. We extracted demographics, implant data, rate of dislocations and incidence of other complications. Kaplan Meier curves were used to assess dislocation and failure for any reason. WOMAC was used to assess quality of life.

At 10 years, the survival free of dislocation was 95.6% (95%CI 90- 98), and at 20 years to 90.6% (95% CI 81- 95.5). Eight patients (7.1%) had dislocations of their constrained liners: 1 patient had simultaneous periprosthetic infection identified at the time of open reduction, and 1 patient sustained stem fracture 3 months prior to the liner dislocation. At 10 years, the survival to any further surgery was 89.4% (95% CI 82–93.8), and at 20 years, this was 82.5 (95% CI 71.9–89.3). Five patients (4.4%) had deep infection: 4 of these had excision arthroplasty due to failure to control infection, while 1 patient was treated successfully with debridement, exchange of mobile components and intravenous antibiotics. Two patients (1.8%) had dissociated rings that required change of liner, ring and head. Two patients (1.8%) had periprosthetic femoral fractures that were treated by revision stems and exchange of constrained liners. The mean WOMAC functional and pain scores were 66.2 and 75.9 of 100, respectively.

Constrained tripolar liners in our institute provided favourable results in the long term for recurrent dislocation hip arthroplasty with dysfunctional hip stabilizers. Infection in these patients can prove to be difficult to treat due to their poor soft tissue conditions from repeated surgeries. Comparing long terms results from other types of constrained liners is essential to evaluate these salvage liners.

High complication rates and poor outcomes have been widely reported in patients undergoing revision of large head metal-on-metal arthroplasty. A previous study from our centre showed high rates of dislocation, nerve injury, early cup loosening and pseudotumor recurrence. After noting these issues, we implemented the following changes in surgical protocol in all large head MOM revisions: One: Use of highly porous shells in all cases. Two: Use of largest femoral head possible. Three: Low threshold for use of dual mobility and constrained liners when abductors affected or absent posterior capsule. Four: Use of ceramic head with titanium sleeve in all cases. Five: Partial resection of pseudotumor adjacent to sciatic and femoral nerves.

The purpose of the present study is to compare the new surgical protocol above to our previously reported early complications in this group of patients

We specifically looked at (1) complications including reoperations, (2) radiologic outcomes, and (3) functional outcomes. Complication rates after (Group 1), and before (Group 2) modified surgical protocol were compared using Chi-square test, assuming statistical significance p < 0 .05.

Major complications occurred in 4 (8.3%) of 48 patients who had modified surgical technique, compared to 12 (38%) of 32 revisions prior to modification (p < 0 .05). Two hips of 48 (4.17%) endured dislocations in Group 1, compared to 9 of 32 (28%) in Group 2 (p < 0 .05). Four patients of 48 had repeat revision in Group 1: 2 for recurrence of pseudotumor, 1 for dislocation, and 1 for infection, compared to 6 patients who had 7 repeat revisions of 32 patients in Group 2: 3 for acetabular loosening, 3 for dislocation, and 1 for recurrence of pseudotumor (p=0.1). None of 48 revisions in Group 1 had acetabular loosening, compared to 4 of 32 in Group 2 (p=0.02). Two patients had nerve injury in Group 2, compared to none in Group 1 (p=0.16). The mean WOMAC pain score was 87.1 of 100 and the function score was 88.4 of 100 in Group 1, compared to a mean WOMAC pain score of 78 of 100 (p=0.6) and a function score of 83 of 100 in Group 2 (p=0.8).

Modification of the surgical techniques described in the introduction has resulted in a significant decrease in complications in revision of large head MOM total hips. We continue to use this protocol and recommend it for these difficult cases.

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static vs. articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years.

At our institution our choice of spacer for 2 stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat 2 stage, overall infection control was 98%. In addition, we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores.

While the articulated spacer was our treatment of choice in 2 stage exchange around 2012, the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time, based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes.

More recently as of Sept 2015 we have used an all polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 28 of these and in 80% of cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practi

I believe ceramic-on-polyethylene should be used in all patients undergoing THA. I believe the issues that one must look at include wear and osteolysis, bearing fracture and in 2018 corrosion/adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). If one looks at these aspects it is clear ceramic-on-polyethylene is the bearing of choice.

In the literature, there is a paucity of studies comparing metal-on-polyethylene with ceramic-on-polyethylene total hips. The data suggests no real difference in survivorship but less wear. However, most studies are not comparative studies and are underpowered to see these differences. The only data that is powered to see these differences is registry data. In first decade survivorship of metal-on- polyethylene is similar to ceramic-on-polyethylene. However, in the second decade the advantage is clearly with ceramic-on-polyethylene.

However, in 2018, the major issue is corrosion and subsequent ALTR. While corrosion at the femoral head and stem taper has been seen for many years, in 2012 an article by Cooper et al. highlighted that this corrosion may lead to ALTR. They reported on 10 cases with variable presentation and no specific factor was found in their study or any study to date that will lead to corrosion and ALTR. More recently, a study from our center highlighted that dislocation may be the first presentation of ALTR. In this study, 10 cases of dislocation presented at an mean of 8 months with their first dislocation. Components were well positioned and it was concluded that the ALTR was the cause for the dislocation. Today any patient with new onset pain, stiffness or instability with a metal-on-polyethylene THA should be worked up for ALTR.

The question of why this is happening now is important to answer. Numerous theories have been proposed, most likely it is a combination of these factors: change in trunnion dimension/surface, increasing head size, trunnion preparation and impaction force. It also appears to be stem dependent. In a study by McGrory et al. they found a 1% prevalence of ALTR in just over 1300 cases with one particular femoral stem.

At present, however, we cannot predict at all which patient will develop ALTR and therefore we have gone to ceramic-on-polyethylene in all our THAs.

In summary, the ideal bearing has low wear, low corrosion potential, generalizable, easy to revise, versatile, biocompatible and safe. In 2018, ceramic-on-polyethylene as a bearing fulfills all these criteria and should be the bearing of choice in total hip replacement.

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects.

Several studies at our institution have compared modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems.

As mentioned, one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction.

Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction, more recently, at our institution, we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with a monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems.

Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice.

Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with a endofemoral approach. In this approach the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem.

In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases.

Intra-operative fractures of the femur are on the rise mainly due to the increased use of cementless implants and the desire to get a tight press fit. The prevalence has been reported to be between 1–5% in cementless THAs. The key to preventing these fractures is to identify patients at high risk and careful surgical technique. Surgical risk factors include the use of cementless devices, revision hip surgery, the use of flat tapered wedges and MIS surgery. Patient factors that increased risk include increasing age, female gender, osteopenia and rheumatoid arthritis. These risk factors tend to be additive and certainly when more than one is present extra caution needs to be taken.

Surgical technique is critical to avoid these intra-operative fractures. Fractures can occur during exposure and dislocation, during implant removal (in revision THA), during canal preparation and most commonly during stem insertion. In both primary, and especially in revision, THA be wary of the stiff hip in association with osteopenia or osteolysis. These patients require a very gentle dislocation. If this cannot be achieved, then alteration of the standard approach and dislocation may be needed. Examples of these include protrusion with an osteopenic femur and revision THA with a very stiff hip with lysis in the femur. Lastly, in cases with retained hardware, dislocate prior to removing plates and screws.

After dislocation, the next challenge is gentle preparation of the femoral canal. A reasonable exposure is required to access the femoral canal safely. MIS procedures do not offer good access to femoral canal and this probably results in increased risk of fracture during broaching or implant insertion. When broaching, stop when broach will not advance further. When inserting a tapered wedge stem, be worried if stem goes further in than broach.

In revision surgery, when taking the stem out from above, make sure the area of the greater trochanter does not overhang the canal. A high speed burr can clear the shoulder for easier access for removal. In revision THA with an ETO, place a cerclage wire prior to reaming and retighten prior to stem insertion.

Even with careful surgical technique intra-operative femoral fractures will still occur. When inserting the stem, a sudden change in resistance is highly suggestive of fracture. Wide exposure of the entire proximal femur is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. The distal extent of the fracture must be seen. Only on occasion is an intra-operative radiograph needed. Management is directed to ensuring component stability and good fracture fixation. In primary total hip arthroplasty, calcar fractures are by far the most common. If using proximal fixation and you are certain the stem is stable, then all that is needed is cerclage wiring. As already mentioned, you must follow the fracture line distally so you are aware of how far down it goes. Often what appears to be a calcar split actually propagates distal to the lesser trochanter. In these cases, one would probably go for distal fixation plus wiring.

In conclusion, intra-operative femoral fractures are on the rise. Prevention is the key.

The goals of revision total hip on the femoral side are to achieve long term stable fixation, improve quality of life and minimise complications such as intra-operative fracture or dislocation. Ideally these stems will preserve or restore bone stock. Modular titanium stems were first introduced in North America around 2000. They gained popularity as an option for treating Paprosky 3B and 4 defects.

Several studies at our institution have compared the modular titanium stems with monoblock cobalt chromium stems. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life. We also looked at complications such as intra-operative fracture and post-operative dislocation. We also compared these 2 stems with respect to restoration or preservation of bone stock. In 2 studies we showed that modular titanium stems gave superior functional outcomes as well as decreased complications compared to a match cohort of monoblock cobalt chromium stems.

As mentioned one of the initial reasons for introduction of these stems was to address larger femoral defects where failure rates with monoblock cobalt chromium stems were unacceptably high. We followed a group of 65 patients at 5–10 years post-revision with a modular fluted titanium stem. Excellent fixation was obtained with no cases of aseptic loosening. However, there were 5 cases of fracture of the modular junction.

Due to concerns of fracture of the modular junction more recently at our institution we have switched to almost 100% monoblock fluted titanium stems. We recently reviewed our first 100 cases of femoral revision with monoblock stem. Excellent fixation was achieved with no cases of aseptic loosening. Quality of life outcomes were similar to our previous reported series on modular tapered titanium stems.

Both monoblock and modular fluted titanium stems can give excellent fixation and excellent functional outcomes. This leaves a choice for the surgeon. For the low volume revision surgeon modular tapered stems are probably the right choice.

Higher volume surgeons or surgeons very comfortable with performing femoral revision may want to consider monoblock stems. If one is making the switch it would be easiest to start with a simple case. Such a case would be one that can be done with an endofemoral approach. In this the greater trochanter is available as the key landmark for reaming. After the surgeon is comfortable with this stem more complex cases can easily be handled with the monoblock stem.

In summary, both modular and monoblock titanium stems are excellent options for femoral revision. As one becomes more familiar with the monoblock stem it can easily become your workhorse for femoral revision. At our institution we introduced a monoblock titanium stem in 2011. It started out at 50% of cases and now it is virtually used in almost 100% of revision cases.

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in North America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years.

At our institution our choice of spacer for two-stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two stage overall infection control was 98%. In addition we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores.

While the articulated spacer was our treatment of choice in two-stage exchange around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), our institution continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so-called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all-polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilisation of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one-stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes.

More recently, as of Sept 2015, we have used an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 12 of these and in all cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practice.

Intra-operative fractures of the femur are on the rise mainly due to the increased use of cementless implants and the desire to get a tight pressfit. The prevalence has been reported to be between 1–5% in cementless total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The key to preventing these fractures is to identify patients at high risk and careful surgical technique. Surgical risk factors include the use of cementless devices, revision hip surgery, the use of flat tapered wedges and MIS surgery. Patient factors that increased risk include increasing age, female gender, osteopenia and rheumatoid arthritis. These risk factors tend to be additive and certainly when more than one is present extra caution needs to be taken.

Surgical technique is critical to avoid these intra-operative fractures. Fractures can occur during exposure and dislocation, during implant removal (in revision THA), during canal preparation and most commonly during stem insertion. In both primary and especially in revision THA, be wary of the stiff hip in association with osteopenia or osteolysis. These patients require a very gentle dislocation. If this cannot be achieved, then alteration of the standard approach and dislocation may be needed. Examples of these include protrusion with an osteopenic femur and revision THA with a very stiff hip with lysis in the femur. Lastly, in cases with retained hardware, dislocate prior to removing plates and screws.

After dislocation, the next challenge is gentle preparation of the femoral canal. A reasonable exposure is required to access the femoral canal safely. MIS procedures do not offer as good access to femoral canal and this probably results in increased risk of fracture during broaching or implant insertion. When broaching, stop when broach will not advance further. When inserting a tapered wedge stem, be worried if stem goes further in than broach.

In revision surgery when taking the stem out from above, make sure the greater trochanter does not overhang the canal. A high speed burr can clear the shoulder for easier access for removal. In revision THA with an ETO place a cerclage wire prior to reaming and retighten prior to stem insertion.

Even with careful surgical technique intra-operative femoral fractures will still occur. When inserting the stem a sudden change in resistance is highly suggestive of fracture. Wide exposure of the entire proximal femur is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. The distal extent of the fracture must be seen. Only on occasion is an intra-operative radiograph needed. Management is directed to ensuring component stability and good fracture fixation. In primary total hip arthroplasty calcar fractures are by far the most common. If using proximal fixation and you are certain the stem is stable, then all that is needed is cerclage wiring. As already mentioned, you must follow the fracture line distally so you are aware of how far down it goes. Often what appears to be a calcar split actually propagates distal to the lesser trochanter. In these cases, one would probably go for distal fixation plus wiring.

In conclusion intra-operative femoral fractures are on the rise. Prevention is the key. If a fracture, exposure is the key to deciding on a treatment plan.

Two stage exchange has been the gold standard in north America for the treatment of infected knee replacements. The choice of static versus articulated spacers has been debated for a number of years.

At our institution our choice of spacer for 2 stage exchanges is an articulated spacer. This allows motion between stages which facilitates recovery, and makes the second stage technically easier. In a study from our institution we followed 115 infected TKAs treated with the PROSTALAC articulated spacer for 5–9 years. Success for eradication of infection was 88%. With a repeat two stage overall infection control was 98%. In addition we compared functional outcomes to a group of aseptic knee revisions and found no difference in functional outcomes with standard quality of life outcome scores.

While the articulated spacers was our treatment of choice in 2 stage exchange around 2012 the company that manufactured the PROSTALAC knee components ceased to manufacture them. At that time based on the work of 2 previous studies (Hofmann, Lee), at our institution we continued to use articulated spacers. However, this was now the so called Hofmann technique with a new standard femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia. The only difference from a standard knee revision was no stems and the utilization of high dose antibiotics. We also followed the principles from Europe of one stage exchange, such as wide debridement and soaking in dilute betadine for 15 minutes.

More recently as of Sept 2015 we have used an all-polyethylene tibia with a keel. The hope being that this will give a more stable tibia than previous and perhaps make a second stage unnecessary. Our first case was September 2015. The intention was not to do a second stage if the infection was eradicated and the patient had good pain relief and function. To date we have implanted 12 of these and in all cases we have not had to do a second stage revision. Further study will reveal where this inadvertent one stage fits in our practice.

In revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), acetabular reconstruction while dealing with severe bone loss is a challenge. The porous tantalum revision acetabular shells have been in use for the past decade. Several reports have documented successful use at early to mid-term follow up. There is, however, very little literature around the long-term survival and quality of life outcome with the use of these shells.

We reviewed the results of 46 acetabular revisions with Paprosky 2 and 3 acetabular bone defects reconstructed with a hemispheric, tantalum acetabular shell and multiple supplementary screws. There were 31 females. Average age at revision was 64 years (range 23–85 years). The mean and median follow up was 11 years (range 10–12 years, SD 1). Morselised femoral allograft was used in 34 hips to fill contained cavitary defectes. Bulk femoral allografting was performed in 2 hips.

At a minimum follow-up of 10 (range 10–12) years, the survivorship of the porous tantalum acetabular shell, with revision of the shell as end point was 96%. The minimum 10-year survivorship with hip revision for any reason as end point was 92%. We noted excellent pain relief (mean WOMAC pain 92.6) and good functional outcome (mean WOMAC function 90.3, mean UCLA 5); and generic quality of life measures (mean SF-12 physical component 48.3; mean SF-12 mental component 56.7). Patient satisfaction with pain relief, function and return to recreational activities were noted to be excellent.

Cementless acetabular revision with the tantalum acetabular shell demonstrated excellent clinical and quality of life outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up. As far as we are aware this is the first report of minimum 10-year follow up of use of this technique for revision hip arthroplasty.

Revision surgery for pelvic discontinuity in the presence of bone loss is challenging. The cup-cage reconstruction option has become popular for the management of pelvic discontinuity in the recent years. The aim of this study was to review the clinical, radiological and patient reported outcomes with the use of cup cage construct for pelvic discontinuity at our institution.

Twenty-seven patients (27 cup-cage reconstructions) were identified at median 6-year (minimum 2 year, maximum 10 years) follow up. Eight were female patients. The median age was 77 years [mean 72, range 37–90, SD 13.6]. There were 5 deaths and 2 were lost to follow up.

Two patients were converted to excision arthroplasty; one for infection and one for failure of the construct. A further 3 patients required revision for instability but the cup cage construct was not revised (2 revisions of cemented cups to a constrained cup and one revision of proximal modular component of the femoral prosthesis). Revision of the cup cage construct was not necessary in any of these cases. We noted excellent pain relief (mean WOMAC pain 85.6) and good functional outcome (mean WOMAC function 78.2, mean UCLA 5, mean OHS 78.6). Patient satisfaction with regards pain relief; function and return to activities were noted to be excellent. Radiological changes were noted in further 4 patients (cup migration in one case; fracture of ischial spike in one case and breakage of the cage screws in 2 patients). No migration of the construct was noted in any of the cases.

In conclusion, the cup cage construct is an excellent method of dealing with complex pelvic discontinuity. Our study suggests a low failure rate; high patient satisfaction and pain relief and moderate functional outcome at median 6 year follow up.

The prevalence of pseudotumours in patients with large-head metal-on-metal (MOM) THA has been the subject of implant recalls and warnings from various regulatory agencies. To date, there is no consensus on whether ultrasound or MRI is superior for the detection and following the progression of pseudotumours. Ultrasound is relatively cheap but can be operator dependent. MARS MRI has the advantage of excellent visibility of the soft tissue. However, MRI comes at a marked increase cost and takes about twice as long to perform.

At our institution, we prospectively compared ultrasound to MRI for pseudotumour detection in an asymptomatic cohort of patients with MOM THAs.

We enrolled 40 patients with large-head MOM THAs in the study. The mean age was 54 years (range, 34–76 years). The mean time from surgery was 54 months (range, 40–81 months). There were 28 men and 12 women. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI using slice encoding for metal artifact correction. The gold standard was defined as follows: if both ultrasound and MRI agreed, this was interpreted as concordant and the result was considered accurate.

Ultrasound and MRI agreed in 37 of 40 patients (93%). The prevalence of pseudotumours was 31% (12 of 39) in our cohort. Twenty-three of 39 patients (59%) had completely normal tests and four (10%) had simple fluid collections. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 96% while MRI had a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%.

Conclusions: A negative ultrasound rules out pseudotumour in asymptomatic patients as this test is 100% sensitive. Given its lower cost, we recommend ultrasound as the initial screening tool for pseudotumours.

More recently, Kwon et al have compared ultrasound to MARS MRI for following the progression of pseudotumours. They found a strong agreement between the 2 modalities for assessing change in size and consistency of pseudotumours.