The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to identify the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection.

This study follows up on a smaller study in the same unit in 2019 where an initial 152 cases were scrutinised. In this follow up study we examined 1,361 consecutive patients over a 16-year period whom had undergone revision hip replacement in a tertiary orthopaedic centre for any reason excluding primary bone tumour or malignant metastasis. All patients had tissue sampling for histopathological analysis performed by consultant histopathologists with a specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. The presence of bacteria in greater than 50% of samples sent for microbiological analysis in each patient was used as the gold standard diagnostic comparator for infection. This was then compared with the histology report for each patient.

After excluding 219 patients with incomplete data and 1 sample rejection, 1,141 cases were examined. Microbiology confirmed infection in 132 cases (prevalence of infection 11.04%) and histopathology analysis suggested infection in 171 cases. Only 64 cases with confirmed infection in more than 50% of microbiology samples had concurrent diagnosis of infection on histological analysis (5.60% of total; PPV 51.20%). Furthermore, microbiology analysis confirmed infection in 62 cases where histological analysis failed to identify infection (5.43% of total; False negative rate 49.21%). Overall, histopathology analysis was seen to have a good specificity of 93.99% but poor sensitivity of 50.79%.

We believe that this is the largest series in the literature and is somewhat unique in that all histology analysis was performed by consultant histopathologists with specialist interest in musculoskeletal pathology. Based on the costs incurred by this additional investigation our experience does not support routine sampling for histological analysis in revision hip arthroplasty. This is a substantial paradigm shift from current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but would equate to a substantial cost saving.

We retrospectively reviewed 45 hip arthroplasties which were performed over a period of 20 years in 38 patients with cirrhosis of the liver. There was a high perioperative 30-day complication rate (26.7%). Advanced cirrhosis was associated with a higher risk of complications (p = 0.004) as also was increased age, a high level of creatinine, a low level of albumin, a low platelet count, ascites, encephalopathy and an increased operative blood loss. The survival of the prosthesis at five years was 77.8% and infection was a major cause of failure.

In view of the high rate of early complications and the limited longevity of the prosthesis, surgeons who perform hip arthroplasty on such patients should counsel them appropriately preoperatively.

There are several techniques for the accurate measurement of the migration of components after arthroplasty some of which require the operative placement of tantalum balls. We have reviewed the position and migration of these markers in 64 patients after total hip arthroplasty.

In 40% of cases, one or more balls was seen to be outside the proximal femur on the postoperative radiograph, although all were considered to be within the bone at operation. In two hips, one ball appeared to have migrated towards the joint, although none was seen within the joint. Misplacement was not related to the experience of the surgeon or the operative approach.

Migration analysis which necessitates the insertion of tantalum balls requires careful technique to avoid a potential source of third-body wear. It should probably be used only for research in small series of patients.