Aim: The purpose of our study is to present the survival results, clinical outcome and complications from the use of APC in cases with a history of periprosthetic infection.

Materials and Methods: Between 1986 and 1999, twenty-two patients (twenty-two hips) 11 male and 11 female (mean age 57.5 years – range 38 to 77 years) with massive bone loss (Paprosky IIIA 2 cases, IIIB 4 cases, and IV 16 cases) were included to our study. They all had a history of periprosthetic infection after an average of 3.3 (range 1 to 5) revision hip arthroplasties and were submitted to a two stage revision arthroplasty using an allograft-prosthesis composite.

Results: At an average follow-up of eleven years (range, eight to twenty years), 14 patients were alive, 7 patients died, and 1 patient was lost to follow-up. The ten year survival of the allograft-prosthesis composites was 74.9 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval 55.1 to 94.7 per cent, 4 cases remaining at risk). Seven cases presented with APC failure needing re-revision, 2 due to re-infection (4 and 23 months from revision by the same microorganism species as for the initial infection (Staph aureus to both cases), 3 due to allograft non union (at 21, 43, 79 months) and 2 cases due to graft resorption (164, 175 months post revision). Delayed healing and wound drainage occurred to 2 more cases.

Conclusion: Reconstruction of massive proximal femoral bone loss with an allograft-implant composite is a demanding procedure. Biologic means of reconstruction is a major advantage preserving bone stock for future surgery. However, high complication rate should be considered.

Recently, there has been a reluctance to perform hip arthrodesis. The number of patients requiring the conversion from hip arthrodesis to arthroplasty has also decreased. We present the functional results following conversion of hip arthrodesis to total hip arthroplasty at a specialist hip centre.

76 patients who underwent conversion of hip arthrodesis to total hip arthroplasty between 1963 and 2000 at the Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, were included in this retrospective study. 9 patients died of unrelated causes and 7 patients were lost to follow up. The functional scoring was performed using the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score.

The mean age at the time of surgical hip arthrodesis was 16.7 years and at the time of conversion was 48.7 years. Back pain is the most common indication for the conversion. All the patients were pleased with the clinical outcome following conversion to Arthroplasty. 6 patients had postoperative complications. The mean Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score increased from 8.97 to 13.46 at the latest follow-up. The mean wear rate was 0.06 mm/year. Survival of hip arthroplasty was 92.78 % at 18 years.

Conclusion: Our series demonstrates good outcome and patient satisfaction and high survival of the arthroplasty following the conversion from arthrodesis. Hip arthrodesis could be considered as a holding procedure in selected group of young patients with a later successful conversion to arthroplasty.

Introduction: Arthodesis provides a durable, painless and stable hip. Conversion to arthroplasty was has been recommended to relieve the excessive stresses in the neighbouring joints. We present the long term results following conversion of hip athrodesis to total hip artho-plasty at specialist hip centre. Method and material: 67 patients underwent the conversion between 1963 and 2000 at the centre for hip surgery, wrightington hospital were included in the study. 45 patients are available for the evaluation. Merle d’ Aubigne and Postel as modified by Charnley was used for clinical scoring. The most recent radiograph in patients with surviving arthoplasty was analysed. Results: The mean age at the time of arthodesis was 16.8 years. The conversion to hip arthroplasty was performed after a mean period of 32.3 years (range 12 to 54 years). The mean folowup was 16.37years (range 2–28). The mean Merle d’ Aubigne and Postel score increased from 7.95 to 13.45 postoperatively. All the patients were delighted with the conversion. 7 patients had revision and 1 had pseudoarthrosis. Conclusion: Hip arthrodesis is a useful holding procedure for young persons with painful hip. This could be successfully converted to Hip arthroplasty after an interval of relatively high physical activity during young adult life.

Introduction: We performed a prospective double blind randomised clinical trial to measure the effect of pre-operative infiltration of local anaesthetic around arthroscopy wounds compared to post-operative infiltration on post operative pain relief. The underlying clinical principle is for therapeutic intervention to be made in advance of the pain rather than as a reaction to it.

Methods: 36 patients undergoing daycase unilateral knee arthroscopy between October 2000 and March 2001 were studied. The pre-operative group had 10ml 0.25% bupivicaine infiltrated around the arthroscopy portal site following induction of general anaesthesia (G.A.), the postoperative group received 10ml 0.25% bupivicaine after the procedure but before reversal of the G.A. Pain was assessed using a 10cm Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at pre-operative, 1, 2 and 24 hours post operative. At each assessment the patients were blinded to the previous scores that they had submitted. Oral analgesic use in the post-operative 24 hours was also recorded.

Results: There were 18 patients in each group. The mean Visual Analogue Pain Scores (VAS) were lower in the post-op group (1.3) compared to the pre-op group (1.58) at pre-operative assessment. However this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.5607).

At 1 hour post-op the mean VAS in the post-op group was 1.58 and in the pre-op group 2.59. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.18).

The mean VAS at 2 hours post-op in the pre-op, group was 1.76 compared to 1.82 in the post-op group. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.9932).

At 24 hours the pre-op group had a lower mean VAS (2.25) than the post-op group (2.4). This difference was however not statistically significant (p=0.7418).

Analysis of the post-operative analgesia requirement in both groups failed no reveal a statistically significant difference (p=0.3965).

Conclusion: In daycase knee arthroscopy under general anaesthesia there is no beneficial role in the use of pre-emptive local anaesthetic infiltration around the arthroscopy portal sites as compared to post-operative infiltration.