In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery.

The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned.

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained, and dual mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months).

One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery; one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (12.2%) underwent further procedures; two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 2.4 days, p<0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p<0.001 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium).

In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective hip arthroplasty surgery. The balance of post-operative VTE prophylaxis and risk of post-operative haemorrhage remains at the forefront of surgeon's mind. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has altered their prophylaxis guidance in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to present the VTE incidence in 8,890 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty between January 1997 and March 2018 with Aspirin as the primary agent for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

Analysis of prospective data collection from consecutive patients undergoing THA was performed with the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurring within 6 months of the index operation as the primary outcome measure. 90-day all-cause mortality of this cohort of patients was also analysed.

8890 patients were reviewed. This included 7235 primary, 224 complex primary and 1431 revision cases. The incidence of DVT was 0.64% after elective THA and the incidence of PE was 0.54%. There was no difference in the incidence between primary and revision cases. The 90-day all-cause mortality was 0.88%. Cardiovascular and respiratory disease were the main causes of death following surgery. Only 0.03% of deaths (n= 3) within 90 days of index surgery were due to VTE.

Our results support the use of aspirin as an effective form of prophylaxis against VTE following THA. It is not associated with an increased incidence in symptomatic DVT, PE or death compared to other published studies. The fact that it is inexpensive, readily available, requires no monitoring and does not pose an increased risk of bleeding are other attractive advantages of using aspirin for VTE prophylaxis.

The MAKO Robotic arm is a haptic robotic system that can be used to optimise performance during total hip arthroplasty (THA). We present the outcome of the first 40 robotic cases performed in an NHS foundation trust along with the technique of performing robotic THA in our unit.

Forty consecutive patients undergoing robotic THA (rTHA) were compared to a case matched group of patients undergoing manual THA (m-THA). 2:1 blinded case matching was performed for age, sex, implants used (Trident uncemented socket and cemented Exeter stem, Stryker Mahwah, NJ, US) and surgeon grade. Comparisons were made for radiological positioning of implants, including leg length assessment, and patient reported functional outcome (PROMS). Pre- and post-operative radiographs were independently analysed by 2 authors.

All patients underwent THA for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. No significant difference between groups was identified for post-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) although pre-operatively a significantly higher LLD was highlighted on the MAKO group, likely due to patient selection. Significantly lower post-operative socket version was identified in the MAKO cohort although no difference in post-operative cup inclination was noted. However, there was significantly larger variance in post-op LLD (p=0.024), cup version (p=0.004) and inclination (p=0.05) between groups indicating r-THA was significantly less variable (Levene's test for homogeneity of variance). There was no significant difference in the number of cases outside of Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for inclination (p=0.469), however, there were significantly more cases outside Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for version (12.5% vs 40.3%, p=0.002) in the m-THA group.

We report the commencement of performance of MAKO robotic THA in an NHS institution. No problems with surgery were reported during our learning curve. Robotic THA cases had less variability in terms of implant positioning suggesting that the MAKO robot allows more accurate, less variable implant positioning with fewer outliers. Longer term follow-up of more cases is needed to identify whether this improved implant positioning has an effect on outcomes, but the initial results seem promising.

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the NJR for primary THA. In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in “cement-in-cement” revision cases. It has however been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when, for example, patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this stem in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

Analyses were performed using a dataset based on that used for the 2020 NJR annual report. Our exposure was the stem; the outcome was all-cause construct revision. Crude analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier and adjusted using Cox models. The 44/00/125 stem was directly compared to other stems in the Exeter range.

We analysed 330,732 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem comprising 34.5% of the 958,869 THAs with complete information from the start of the NJR to 31 December 2018. The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs with 67.5% in female patients and a mean age of 67.8. The 10-year revision estimate for the 44/00/125 stem was 4.9% (95%CI 3.6, 6.8) and in constructs using an Exeter V40 stem was 2.8% (95%CI 2.7, 2.8). Controlling for age, sex and ASA demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (HR 1.8 (95%CI 1.4, 2.3)).

Although the revision estimate is within the NICE 10-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the Exeter V40 range. Attempts to control for age, sex and ASA will not take into account confounding by indication i.e. patients with more complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured by this but should be aware of the observed increased revision estimate and use the stem according to its indications.

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.

Introduction

Varus alignment of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is thought to be a risk factor for implant loosening and early revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the Exeter stem tolerates varus alignment and assess if this theoretical malalignment has an influence on clinical outcomes.

Introduction

Rationing of orthopaedic services is increasingly being used by Care Commissioning Groups (CCG) within the United Kingdom to restrict the numbers of patients being referred for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). In Devon, only patients with an Oxford Hip Score (OHS) less than 20 are referred on for specialist Orthopaedic Review. The aim of this study was to look at long term outcomes after THA to see if this rationing has any rational base to justify its use

Cement-in-cement femoral revision is a proven technique in revision total hip arthroplasty, with excellent results when using standard sized Exeter stems. The Exeter 44/00 125 mm short revision stem was introduced in 2004 to facilitate cement-in-cement revision. The stem is 25mm shorter and has a slimmer body to allow greater flexibility to adjust depth of insertion and version of the stem. However, it is not known if this change in stem length and size effects its longer term performance. We therefore reviewed the clinical outcome and survival of the Exeter 44/00 short stem used for cement-in-cement revision in our unit, with a minimum of 5 years follow up.

166 cases were performed between 2004 and 2010. 103 hips were available for 5 year clinical and radiological follow up, with 91 hips surviving to final review in 2017. At 5 years, 43 hips had died, 13 were revised and 7 were too frail to attend clinical review. The fate of all 166 hips were known and included in the survival analysis.

Median clinical scores improved significantly. Sixteen hips required re-revision (infection 6, loose cup 3, periprosthetic fracture 3, instability 2, stem fracture with chronic infection 1 and pain 1). Kaplan-meier survival analysis revealed 100% survival for aseptic loosening, 96.8% survival for stem failure and 88.9% survival for all causes.

This is the largest series with the longest follow up of the Exeter 44/00 short revision stem. The stem performs equally well as standard Exeter stems with regards to aseptic loosening. The single stem fracture occurred secondary to bone loss in chronic infection, highlighting the importance of providing adequate proximal support for the stem. Periprosthetic fracture occurred in 2.4% of this series of revision cases.

Larger registry-based studies may provide additional information on the performance of this stem.

Although cement in cement acetabular revision is a recognised option in the presence of a well-fixed cement mantle, partial cement mantle retention is not normally recommended or practiced. However, when revising a cemented acetabular cup it is not infrequent to be faced with loose superolateral cement but well-fixed medial cement. Removal of the well-fixed cement can be time consuming and destructive. An alternative would be to retain this cement and incorporate it into the reconstruction. This study assesses the practice and results of partial cement mantle retention (PCR) at acetabular revision.

We retrospectively identified a cohort of 28 hips in 26 patients using the PCR technique from 1^st January 2000 to 1^st January 2013. This represented 3.3% of cup revisions where a cemented cup was used.

The area of cement loss was reconstructed in one of three ways: re-cementing into drill holes (6 cases); impaction grafting of the defect (8 cases); or use of a trabecular metal wedge (14 cases).

24 hips had a minimum 2-year follow up (mean 6 years).

There were no subsequent revisions for aseptic loosening.

One acetabulum was later revised for dislocation and X-rays were lost in one patient leaving 22 patients with x-ray available and retained implants. Two of these cases showed progression of lucent lines, which were not clinically significant.

Retaining well-fixed medial cement during socket revision appears to be a reasonable reconstruction option in carefully selected cases.

Introduction

The Exeter Hip femoral component remains largely unchanged from the original design, introduced in 1970. It is a highly polished, modular, double tapered stem and has undergone various minor modifications to surface, modularity and most recently the taper; changed to the current V40^TM design in 2000.

The effect of any design modification cannot easily be foreseen and greater emphasis is now placed on ensuring appropriate monitoring for such implants.

Introduction

Revision of well cemented femoral components in revision THA can be technically challenging and time consuming. The cement in cement (CiC) technique addresses these issues. Results of femoral components which have undergone multiple CiC revisions have not previously been reported.

Introduction

There is sparse evidence regarding the survivorship beyond 20 years of both uncemented and cemented hip replacements in patients 50 years and under. We report a unique series reviewing 20–26 year follow-up of patients ≤50 years with cemented Exeter THR.