“Like other craftsmen, we have often two ways at least of doing the same job, the success of which is dependent upon the character and the integrity of the man. “Approaches” are for us both physical and psychological: in the case of the hip joint it seems clear that there is more than one good method and that, for the sake of those we train, we should keep an open mind.”

Orientation relative to the abductor musculature and ease of access to the pathology in question should provide the compelling basis for selection of operative approaches to the hip, rather than being based solely on surgeon habit.

Approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty remain the surgeon's choice; posterior approaches provide challenges to cup orientation and anterior approaches offer more difficult access to the proximal femur. Imperatives for a decubitus position posterior approach include pelvic dissociation with need for posterior column plating, removal of retained posterior hardware, and sciatic neurolysis after prior injury. Conversely, indications for a supine anterolateral approach include an isolated acetabular revision with a well-fixed femoral stem and the need for retroperitoneal removal of an intrapelvic acetabular component. Transgluteal approaches inflict potentially the greatest damage to the abductor musculature and are best reserved for primary operative settings; stability of a femoral endoprosthesis is optimised through this approach by preserving the posterior capsular structures. The transtrochanteric approach provides unrivaled exposure to both pelvis and acetabulum from either a supine or decubitus position, and is most helpful for removal of long well-fixed femoral stems whether cemented or cementless.

Conventional wisdom holds that aseptic failure of proximal ingrowth femoral stems should be addressed by revision to a longer femoral stem dependent upon more distal fixation. This is a reliable and time-honoured strategy with a high likelihood of success provided secure initial fixation of the revision stem is obtained. Yet, stems reliant upon more distal diaphyseal fixation are accompanied by a greater risk of physiologic thigh pain attributable to the differential in flexural stiffness of the femoral shaft compared with the prosthetic stem.

Contemporary proximal ingrowth femoral stems have become the most popular device used in total hip arthroplasty and are traditionally reserved for primary procedures. Nevertheless, the flat tapered design offers a tight fit between the medial and lateral endosteal cortices of the femur, unimpeded by an increasing anteroposterior dimension of the stem, and provides a secure geometrical block to rotational movement of the stem. In instances when the primary stem is not fit to the endosteal cortex on the anteroposterior radiograph, such as with the Corail or SROM devices, the opportunity may exist for revision with a flat tapered proximal ingrowth stem that is upsized to abut the endosteal femoral cortex. Such a strategy preserves the diaphyseal femur for subsequent revision in these typically young patients and avoids the issue of thigh pain in this active population. Likewise, revision of a well-fixed long stem that is associated with unrelenting thigh pain may be similarly accomplished by revision to a flat proximal ingrowth stem provided the integrity of the upper femur can be maintained during the revision. A prophylactic cerclage wire around the proximal femur is a helpful adjunct when using flat tapered proximal ingrowth stems in the revision setting.

The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has formalized a limit of 16 consecutive duty hours for first year and 20 hours for intermediate level trainees, while maintaining a maximum of 80 duty hours per week despite social pressure to further reduce this limit. Deterioration in cognitive and technical performance secondary to fatigue is the basis for the 16 hour rule, along with the notion that “strategic napping” be strongly encouraged for trainees that must remain for longer shifts. For more senior trainees, graduated independence and responsibility are recognized as important to prepare for the independent practice of medicine.

Yet, a reduction of nearly 7000 hours, or the equivalent of 2 years of surgical education and experience, results from the 80-hour duty limitation compared to surgical training of two decades ago. The contention is that duty hours must be constrained to optimize patient safety and the learning environment, but it is unclear whether mastery of the necessary cognitive and technical competencies can be achieved in such a constricted time period.

Another worrisome by-product of legislated duty hour limitations is the unintended encouragement of a “shift worker” mentality and erosion of the ethos of professionalism among trainees. Effective mentoring takes on critical importance in this challenging environment, yet productive mentoring may be counter to learned adaptive behaviours and instinctive personality traits of some accomplished surgeon educators. Fostering effective mentors in academic surgery requires us to develop behaviors that are conducive to the mentoring process.

As our trainees struggle to achieve mastery of a surgical discipline within a prescribed and constricted time period, we must consider a competency-based system of surgical education rather than one that is time-defined. Likewise, the personal and professional growth of our trainees in this system, as well as the succession planning for our specialty, are dependent upon the creation of an environment conducive to effective mentoring in academic orthopaedics.