There has been a marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies performed over the past 16 years, primarily in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Insights into the pathoanatomy of FAI, and high-level evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopy in the management of FAI, have fuelled this trend. Arthroscopic management of labral tears with repair may have superior results compared with debridement, and there is now emerging evidence to support reconstructive options where repair is not possible. In situations where an interportal capsulotomy is performed to facilitate access, data now support closure of the capsule in selective cases where there is an increased risk of postoperative instability. Preoperative planning is an integral component of bony corrective surgery in FAI, and this has evolved to include computer-planned resection. However, the benefit of this remains controversial. Hip instability is now widely accepted, and diagnostic criteria and treatment are becoming increasingly refined. Instability can also be present with FAI or develop as a result of FAI treatment. In this annotation, we outline major current controversies relating to decision-making in hip arthroscopy for FAI. Cite this article:
A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone
loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome
of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of
their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The
aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic
indications. A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for
non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of
complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS),
at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time
of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations
on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR
implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40),
periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a
proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11).Objectives
Methods
The management of proximal femoral bone loss is a significant challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. A possible solution is the use of a modular proximal femur endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the survivorship and functional outcome of megaprostheses used in tumour surgery has been well described, outcome of EPRs used in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year outcome following proximal femur EPR and determine factors that influence it. This was a retrospective consecutive case series of all EPRs (n=80) performed for non-neoplastic indications, by 6 surgeons, in our tertiary referral centre, between 2005–2014. Patient demographics and relevant clinical details were determined from notes. The most common indications for the use of EPRs included infection (n=40), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=12) and failed osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures/complex trauma (n=11). Outcome measures included complication and re-operation rates, implant survival and assessment of functional outcome using the Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS). The mean age at surgery was 69 years and mean follow-up was 4 (0 – 11) years. The mean number of previous hip operations was 2.4 (range: 0 – 17). Twenty-five patients sustained a complication (31%), the most common being infection (n=9) and dislocation (n=4). By follow-up, further surgery was required in 18 (22%) hips, 9 of which were EPR revisions. 5-yr implant survivorship was 87% (95%CI: 76 – 98%). Mean OHS was 28 (range: 4 – 48). Inferior survival and outcome were seen in EPRs performed for the treatment of infection. Infection eradication was achieved in 34/41 with the index EPR procedure and in 40/41 hips by follow-up. Limb salvage was achieved in all cases and acceptable complication- and re-operation rates were seen. EPRs for periprosthetic fractures and failed osteosynthesis had best outcome. We recommend the continued use of proximal femur EPR in complex revision surgery.
Optimum component orientation in hip arthroplasty is vital in an effort to avoid dislocation and excessive wear. Computer navigation in hip arthroplasty surgery has the potential to improve accuracy in component placement. However, it has been slow to gain widespread acceptance. One of the major concerns surgeons have is the difficulty in registering pelvic landmarks. We used a retrospective series of 200 pelvic CT scans to validate a new methodology to construct the anterior pelvic plane, using anatomical landmarks that are easily palpated with the patient positioned and draped in the lateral decubitus position. Analysis of the scans was also made in an effort to stimulate the inaccuracies of obtaining the anterior pelvic plane through soft tissue. When comparing the new registration methodology to the anterior pelvic plane, the error in acetabular component inclination was 0.69° (SD 2.96) and anteversion was 1.17° (SD 3.53). This compares favourably to the error in acetabular component inclination of −0.92° (SD 0.26) and anteversion of −5.24° (SD 2.09) when the anterior pelvic plane is registered through soft tissue. The data also shows that using the new registration method in more than 99.6% of cases the acetabular placement is within the safe zone as described by Lewinnek. This study appears to show that through the identification of anatomical constants we are able to construct the anterior pelvic plane from anatomical landmarks that are easily palpable in the lateral decubitus position during hip arthroplasty. These landmarks also appear to be more accurate in obese patients than registering the anterior pelvic plane.
