We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the piriformis-sparing approach with the standard posterior approach used for total hip replacement (THR). We recruited 100 patients awaiting THR and randomly allocated them to either the piriformis-sparing approach or the standard posterior approach. Pre- and post-operative care programmes and rehabilitation regimes were identical for both groups. Observers were blinded to the allocation throughout; patients were blinded until the two-week assessment. Follow-up was at six weeks, three months, one year and two years. In all 11 patients died or were lost to follow-up.

There was no significant difference between groups for any of the functional outcomes. However, for patients in the piriformis-sparing group there was a trend towards a better six-minute walk test at two weeks and greater patient satisfaction at six weeks. The acetabular components were less anteverted (p = 0.005) and had a lower mean inclination angle (p = 0.02) in the piriformis-sparing group. However, in both groups the mean component positions were within Lewinnek’s safe zone. Surgeons perceived the piriformis-sparing approach to be significantly more difficult than the standard approach (p = 0.03), particularly in obese patients.

In conclusion, performing THR through a shorter incision involving sparing piriformis is more difficult and only provides short-term benefits compared with the standard posterior approach.

We treated 34 patients with recurrent dislocation of the hip with a constrained acetabular component. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis was performed to assess migration of the prosthesis.

The mean clinical follow-up was 3.0 years (2.2 to 4.8) and the radiological follow-up was 2.7 years (2.0 to 4.8). At the latest review six patients had died and none was lost to follow-up. There were four acetabular revisions, three for aseptic loosening and one for deep infection. Another acetabular component was radiologically loose with progressive radiolucent lines in all Gruen zones and was awaiting revision. The overall rate of aseptic loosening was 11.8% (4 of 34). Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis in the non-revised components confirmed migration of up to 1.06 mm of translation and 2.32° of rotation at 24 months. There was one case of dislocation and dissociation of the component in the same patient. Of the 34 patients, 33 (97.1%) had no further episodes of dislocation.

The constrained acetabular component reported in our study was effective in all but one patient with instability of the hip, but the rate of aseptic loosening was higher than has been reported previously and requires further investigation.