Patients who are actively smoking at the time of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at considerably increased risk of perioperative complications. Therefore, strategies to assist patients with smoking cessation before surgery have become routine practice. A secondary benefit is the theoretical catalyst for long-term smoking cessation. However, questions remain as to whether patients actually cease smoking prior to the procedure, and if so, how long this lasts postoperatively.

Our high-volume, academic institution documents self-reported smoking status at each clinic visit (at 6-month intervals), as well as at the time of surgery through a total joint registry. As such, all patients who underwent TJA from 2007 to 2018 were identified and grouped as: non-smokers, smokers (regularly smoking cigarettes within 1 year from surgery), and former smokers (those who quit smoking within a year before surgery). Thereafter, smoking status in the postoperative period was assessed, with special attention to the former smokers in order to see who remained smoke-free.

From the 28,758 primary TJAs identified, 91.3% (26,244) were non-smokers, 7.3% (2,109) were smokers, and 1.4% (405) had quit smoking before surgery. Among patients who quit smoking before surgery, only 38% were still abstinent at 9 years from surgery. Conversely, 24% of smokers at the time of surgery eventually quit and 3.1% of non-smokers started smoking over the same time period.

Despite a concerted effort to help patients stop smoking before TJA, an important proportion (7.3%) are unsuccessful. Among those patients who do manage to stop smoking, only a minority (38%) remain smoke-free after surgery. Compared to current smokers, patients who managed to quit before surgery are more likely to remain smoke-free after surgery. These findings highlight that smoking remains a tremendous challenge in contemporary TJA practices. Additional strategies targeting smoking cessation before after surgery are needed.

Pathologic fractures about the hip are an uncommon, but increasingly prevalent, clinical scenario encountered by orthopaedic surgeons. These fractures about the hip usually necessitate operative management. Life expectancy must be taken into account in management, but if survivorship is greater than 1 month, operative intervention is indicated.

Determination must be made prior to operative management if the lesion is a solitary or metastatic lesion. Imaging of the entire femur is necessary to determine if there are other lesions present. Bone lesions that have a large size, permeative appearance, soft tissue mass, and rapid growth are all characteristics that suggest an aggressive lesion. Biopsy of the lesion in coordination with the operative surgeon should be conducted if the primary tumor is unknown. Metastatic disease is much more common than primary tumors in the adult population.

Many metastatic fractures in the intertrochanteric region, and all fractures in the femoral neck and head are an indication for hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. Cemented femoral implants are generally indicated. This allows immediate weight bearing in a bone with compromised bone stock, thus reducing the risk of peri-operative fractures. Additionally, patients are often treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy, which may prevent proper osseointegration of an ingrowth femoral component. Highly porous ingrowth shells have been shown to provide reliable and durable fixation even in these situations.

Management of a periacetabular pathologic fracture, particularly resulting in a pelvic discontinuity is a particularly challenging situation. Use of a highly porous acetabular component combined with an acetabular cage, a custom acetabular component, a cemented Harrington technique, or a primary acetabular reconstruction cage may be utilised.

Patients with neoplastic disease are often at risk for infection and thromboembolic disease both from the disease and treatment. Pre-operative evaluation of nutrition status by measuring albumin and pre-albumin will give the surgeon insight. Additionally, dehydration is commonly seen in cancer patients, and adequate pre-operative optimization of fluids and electrolytes may reduce peri-operative complications from other organ systems.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been cited as one of the most successful surgical procedures performed today. However, as hip surgeons, we desire constantly improving outcomes for THA patients with more favorable complication rates. At the same time, patients desire hip pain relief and return to function with as little interruption of life as possible. The expectation of patients has changed; they have more physical demands for strength and flexibility, and aspire to achieve more in their recreational pursuits. Additionally, health care system constraints require the THA episode of care to become more efficient as the number of procedures increases with time. These factors, over the past fifteen years, have led to a search for improved surgical approaches and peri-operative pain and rehabilitation protocols for primary THA. The orthopaedic community has seen improved pain control, length of stay, and reduction in complications with changes in practice and protocols. However, the choice of surgical approach has provided significant controversy in the orthopaedic literature. In the 2000s, the mini-posterior approach (MPA) was demonstrated as the superior tissue sparing approach. More recently, there has been a suggestion that the direct anterior approach (DAA) leads to less muscle damage, and improved functional outcomes.

A recent prospective randomised trial has shown a number of early deficits of the posterior approach when compared to the direct anterior approach. The posterior approach resulted in patients taking an additional 5 days to discontinue a walker, discontinue all gait aids, discontinue narcotics, ascend stairs with a gait aid, and to walk 6 blocks. Patients receiving the posterior approach required more morphine equivalents in the hospital, and had higher VAS pain scores in the hospital than the direct anterior approach. Interestingly, activity monitoring at two weeks post-operatively also favored DAA with posterior approach patients walking 1600 steps less per day than DAA patients. There has been little difference in the radiographic outcomes or complications between approaches in prospective randomised trials.

A number of randomised clinical trials have demonstrated that both the direct anterior and posterior approach provided excellent early post-operative recovery with a low complication rate. DAA patients have objectively faster recovery with slightly shorter times to achieve milestones of function, with similar radiographic and clinical outcomes at longer-term outcomes, with a similar complication rate.

Patients with neuromuscular disease and imbalance present a particularly challenging clinical situation for the orthopaedic hip surgeon. The cause of the neuromuscular imbalance may be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic disorders include those in which the hip is in development, such as cerebral palsy, polio, CVA, and other spinal cord injuries and disease. This can result in subluxation and dislocation of the hip in growing children, and subsequent pain, and difficulty in sitting and perineal care. Extrinsic factors involve previously stable hips and play a secondary role in the development of osteoarthritis and contractures in later life. Examples of extrinsic factors are Parkinson's disease, dyskinesis, athetosis, and multiple sclerosis.

Goals of treatment in adults with pain and dysfunction in the setting of neuromuscular imbalance are to treat contractures and to perform salvage procedures to improve function and eliminate pain. Treatment of patients with neuromuscular imbalance may include resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone), arthrodesis, or total hip arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty is typically reserved for patients that are non-ambulatory, or hips that are felt to be so unstable that arthroplasty would definitely fail due to instability. In modern times arthrodesis has limited use as it negatively impacts function and self-care in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Total hip arthroplasty has the ability to treat pain, relieve contractures, and provide improved function.

Due to the increased risk of instability, special considerations must be made during primary total hip arthroplasty in this patient cohort. Risk of instability may be addressed by surgical approach, head size, or use of alternative bearing constructs. Posterior approach may have increased risk of posterior dislocation in this patient group, particularly if a posterior capsular repair is not possible due to the flexion contractures and sitting position in many patients. Surgeons familiar with the approaches may utilise the anterolateral or direct anterior approach judicially. Release of the adductors may be performed in conjunction with primary total hip arthroplasty to help with post-operative range of motion and to decrease risk of instability. In a standard bearing, the selected head size should be the largest that can be utilised for the particular cup size. Rigorous testing of intra-operative impingement, component rotation, and instability is required. If instability cannot be adequately addressed by a standard bearing, the next option is a dual mobility bearing. Multiple studies have shown improved stability with the use of these bearings, but they are also at risk for instability, intraprosthetic dislocation, and fretting and corrosion of the modular connections. Another option is a constrained liner. However, this results in reduced range of motion, and an increased risk for mechanical complications of the construct. The use of a constrained liner in a primary situation should be limited to the most severe instability cases, and the patient should be counseled with the associated risks. If total hip arthroplasty results in repeated instability, revision surgery or Girdlestone arthroplasty may be considered.