Aims

The primary objective of this study was to develop a validated classification system for assessing iatrogenic bone trauma and soft-tissue injury during total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary objective was to compare macroscopic bone trauma and soft-tissues injury in conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA) using this classification system.

Aims

Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA.

Aims

BoneMaster is a thin electrochemically applied hydroxyapatite (HA) coating for orthopaedic implants that is quickly resorbed during osseointegration. Early stabilization is a surrogacy marker of good survival of femoral stems. The hypothesis of this study was that a BoneMaster coating yields a fast early and lasting fixation of stems.

Aims

To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening.

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone-preserving treatment option for osteoarthritis localized to a single compartment in the knee. The success of the procedure is sensitive to patient selection and alignment errors. Robotic arm-assisted UKA provides technological assistance to intraoperative bony resection accuracy, which is thought to improve ligament balancing. This paper presents the five-year outcomes of a comparison between manual and robotically assisted UKAs.

We evaluated an operative technique, described by the Exeter Hip Unit, to assist accurate introduction of the femoral component. We assessed whether it led to a reduction in the rate of leg-length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

A total of 100 patients undergoing THA were studied retrospectively; 50 were undertaken using the test method and 50 using conventional methods as a control group. The groups were matched with respect to patient demographics and the grade of surgeon. Three observers measured the depth of placement of the femoral component on post-operative radiographs and measured the length of the legs.

There was a strong correlation between the depth of insertion of the femoral component and the templated depth in the test group (R = 0.92), suggesting accuracy of the technique. The mean leg-length discrepancy was 5.1 mm (0.6 to 21.4) pre-operatively and 1.3 mm (0.2 to 9.3) post-operatively. There was no difference between Consultants and Registrars as primary surgeons. Agreement between the templated and post-operative depth of insertion was associated with reduced post-operative leg-length discrepancy. The intra-class coefficient was R ≥ 0.88 for all measurements, indicating high observer agreement. The post-operative leg-length discrepancy was significantly lower in the test group (1.3 mm) compared with the control group (6.3 mm, p < 0.001).

The Exeter technique is reproducible and leads to a lower incidence of leg-length discrepancy after THA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:154–9.

As part of the national initiative to reduce waiting times for joint replacement surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust referred 224 patients to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 258 Kinemax TKRs were performed between November 2004 and August 2006. Of these, a total of 199 patients (232 TKRs, 90%) have been followed up for five years. This cohort was compared with 258 consecutive TKRs in 250 patients, performed at Cardiff and Vale Orthopaedic Centre (CAVOC) over a similar time period. The five year cumulative survival rate was 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.0 to 86.0) in the Weston-Super-Mare cohort and 95.0% (95% CI 90.2 to 98.2) in the CAVOC cohort with revision for any reason as the endpoint. The relative risk for revision at Weston-Super-Mare compared with CAVOC was 3.88 (p < 0.001). For implants surviving five years, the mean Oxford knee scores (OKS) and mean EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores were similar (OKS: Weston-Super-Mare 29 (2 to 47) vs CAVOC 29.8 (3 to 48), p = 0.61; EQ-5D: Weston-Super-Mare 0.53 (-0.38 to 1.00) vs CAVOC 0.55 (-0.32 to 1.00), p = 0.79). Patients with revised TKRs had significantly lower Oxford knee and EQ-5D scores (p < 0.001).

The results show a higher revision rate for patients operated at Weston-Super-Mare Treatment Centre, with a reduction in functional outcome and quality of life after revision. This further confirms that patients moved from one area to another for joint replacement surgery fare poorly.

The ideal bearing surface for young patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) remains controversial. We report the five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of 102 THRs in 91 patients who were <  65 years of age. These patients were randomised to receive a cobalt–chrome on ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, cobalt–chrome on highly cross-linked polyethylene, or a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. In all, 97 hip replacements in 87 patients were available for review at five years. Two hips had been revised, one for infection and one for peri-prosthetic fracture.

At the final follow-up there were no significant differences between the groups for the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (pain, p = 0.543; function, p = 0.10; stiffness, p = 0.99), Short Form-12 (physical component, p = 0.878; mental component, p = 0.818) or Harris hip scores (p = 0.22). Radiological outcomes revealed no significant wear in the ceramic group.

Comparison of standard and highly cross-linked polyethylene, however, revealed an almost threefold difference in the mean annual linear wear rates (0.151 mm/year versus 0.059 mm/year, respectively) (p < 0.001).

Our aim in this pilot study was to evaluate the fixation of, the bone remodelling around, and the clinical outcome after surgery of a new, uncemented, fully hydroxyapatite-coated, collared and tapered femoral component, designed specifically for elderly patients with a fracture of the femoral neck.

We enrolled 50 patients, of at least 70 years of age, with an acute displaced fracture of the femoral neck in this prospective single-series study. They received a total hip replacement using the new component and were followed up regularly for two years.

Fixation was evaluated by radiostereometric analysis and bone remodelling by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Hip function and the health-related quality of life were assessed using the Harris hip score and the EuroQol-5D.

Up to six weeks post-operatively there was a mean subsidence of 0.2 mm (−2.1 to +0.5) and a retroversion of a mean of 1.2° (−8.2° to +1.5°). No component migrated after three months. The patients had a continuous loss of peri-prosthetic bone which amounted to a mean of 16% (−49% to +10%) at two years. The mean Harris hip score was 82 (51 to 100) after two years.

The two-year results from this pilot study indicate that this new, uncemented femoral component can be used for elderly patients with osteoporotic fractures of the femoral neck.

We undertook a randomised prospective follow-up study of changes in peri-prosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) after hip resurfacing and compared them with the results after total hip replacement. A total of 59 patients were allocated to receive a hip resurfacing (n = 29) or an uncemented distally fixed total hip replacement (n = 30). The BMD was prospectively determined in four separate regions of interest of the femoral neck and in the calcar region corresponding to Gruen zone 7 for the hip resurfacing group and compared only to the calcar region in the total hip replacement group. Standardised measurements were performed pre-operatively and after three, six and 12 months. The groups were well matched in terms of gender distribution and mean age.

The mean BMD in the calcar region increased after one year to 105.2% of baseline levels in the resurfaced group compared with a significant decrease to 82.1% in the total hip replacement group (p < 0.001) by 12 months. For the resurfaced group, there was a decrease in bone density in all four regions of the femoral neck at three months which did not reach statistical significance and was followed by recovery to baseline levels after 12 months.

Hip resurfacing did indeed preserve BMD in the inferior femoral neck. In contrast, a decrease in the mean BMD in Gruen zone 7 followed uncemented distally fixed total hip replacement. Long term follow-up studies are necessary to see whether this benefit in preservation of BMD will be clinically relevant at future revision surgery.

The survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of ≤ 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of ≥ 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.

We have investigated the accuracy of the templating of digital radiographs in planning total hip replacement using two common object-based calibration methods with the ball placed laterally (method 1) or medially (method 2) and compared them with two non-object-based methods. The latter comprised the application of a fixed magnification of 121% (method 3) and calculation of magnification based on the object-film-distance (method 4). We studied the post-operative radiographs of 57 patients (19 men, 38 women, mean age 73 years (53 to 89)) using the measured diameter of the prosthetic femoral head and comparing it with the true value. Both object-based methods (1 and 2) produced large errors (mean/maximum: 2.55%/17.4% and 2.04%/6.46%, respectively). Method 3 applying a fixed magnification and method 4 (object-film-distance) produced smaller errors (mean/maximum 1.42%/5.22% and 1.57%/4.24%, respectively; p < 0.01). The latter results were clinically relevant and acceptable when planning was allowed to within one implant size. Object-based calibration (methods 1 and 2) has fundamental problems with the correct placement of the calibration ball. The accuracy of the fixed magnification (method 3) matched that of object-film-distance (method 4) and was the most reliable and efficient calibration method in digital templating

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.

We aimed to determine the reliability, accuracy and the clinical role of digital templating in the pre-operative work-up for total knee replacement. Initially a sample of ten pre-operative digital radiographs were templated by four independent observers to determine the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the process. Digital templating was then performed on the radiographs of 40 consecutive patients undergoing total knee replacement by a consultant surgeon not involved with the operation, who was blinded to the size of the implant inserted. The Press Fit Condylar Sigma Knee system was used in all the patients. The size of the implant as judged by templating was then compared to that of the size used. Good inter- and intra-observer agreement was demonstrated for both femoral and tibial templating. However, the correct size of the implant was predicted in only 48% of the femoral and 55% of the tibial components. Albeit reproducible, digital templating does not currently predict the correct size of component often enough to be of clinical benefit

Digital templating in hip replacement is commonly performed with radiological markers to determine the magnification. The latter can also be determined by measuring the distance from the x-ray focal spot to the object and the distance from the x-ray focal spot to the radiological cassette or image receptor. We used post-operative radiographs of total hip replacements and hemiarthroplasties from 22 patients to calculate the magnification using both methods. The accuracy of each method was ascertained by measuring the size of the head of the implant projected on to the radiographs and comparing the result with the known size recorded in the medical records. The accuracy was found to be similar with a mean absolute measurement error of 2.6% (. sd. 1.4; 0.0% to 5.2%) for the radiological marker and 2.8% (. sd. 2.2; 0.4% to 10.1%) for the distance method (p = 0.75). The mean radiation dose for templating radiographs (pelvis and lateral of the hip) was similar when taken using a radiological marker (328 mSv . sd. 142) (n = 51) or using the distance measurement method (324 mSv . sd. 39) (n = 39) (p = 0.90). We conclude that the distance measuring method is as accurate as the radiological marker method, but may avoid some of the disadvantages such as misplacement of the marker or placement outside the radiological field. It may also be more acceptable to the patient and radiographer

We have investigated the accuracy of placement of the femoral component using imageless navigation in 100 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings. Pre-operative templating determined the native neck-shaft angle and planned stem-shaft angle of the implant. The latter were verified post-operatively using digital anteroposterior unilateral radiographs of the hip.

The mean neck-shaft angle determined before operation was 132.7° (118° to 160°). The mean planned stem-shaft angle was a relative valgus alignment of 9.7° (sd 2.6). The stem-shaft angle after operation differed from that planned by a mean of 2.8° (sd 2.0) and in 86% of cases the final angle measured within ± 5° of that planned. We had no instances of notching of the neck or varus alignment of the implant in our series. A learning curve was observed in the time taken for navigation, but not for accurate placement of the implant.

Navigation in hip resurfacing may afford the surgeon a reliable and accurate method of placement of the femoral component.

As part of the government’s initiative to reduce waiting times for major joint surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust sent 224 patients (258 knees) to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement. The Kinemax total knee replacement system was used in all cases. The cumulative survival rate at three years was 79.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 69.2 to 86.8) using re-operation for any cause as an endpoint and 85.3% (95% CI 75.9 to 91.8) using aseptic revision as an endpoint. This is significantly worse than that recorded in the published literature. These poor results have resulted in a significant impact on our service.

Digital radiography is becoming widespread. Accurate pre-operative templating of digital images of the hip traditionally involves positioning a calibration object at its centre. This can be difficult and cause embarrassment. We have devised a method whereby a planar disc placed on the radiographic cassette accounts for the expected magnification. Initial examination of 50 pelvic CT scans showed a mean hip centre distance of 117 mm (79 to 142) above the gluteal skin. Further calculations predicted that a disc of 37.17 mm diameter, placed on the cassette, would appear identical to a 30 mm sphere placed at the level of the centre of the hip as requested by our templating software. We assessed accuracy and reproducibility by ‘reverse calibration’ of 20 radiographs taken three months after hip replacement using simultaneous sphere and disc methods, and a further 20 with a precision disc of accurate size. Even when variations in patient size were ignored, the disc proved more accurate and reliable than the sphere. The technique is reliable, robust, cost effective and acceptable to patients and radiographers. It can easily be used in any radiography department after a few simple calculations and manufacture of appropriately-sized discs

Magnification of anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis is variable. To improve the accuracy of templating, reliable and radiographer-friendly methods of scaling are necessary. We assessed two methods of scaling digital radiographs of the pelvis: placing a coin of known diameter in the plane of interest between the patient’s thighs, and using a caliper to measure the bony width of the pelvis. A total of 39 patients who had recently undergone hemiarthroplasty of the hip or total hip replacement were enrolled in the study. The accuracy of the methods was assessed by comparing the actual diameter of the head of the prosthesis with the measured on-screen value. The coin method was within a mean of 1.12% (0% to 2.38%) of the actual measurement, the caliper group within 6.99% (0% to 16.67%). The coin method was significantly more accurate (p < 0.001). It was also reliable and radiographer friendly. We recommend it as the method of choice for scaling radiographs of the pelvis before hip surgery.

In 20 patients undergoing hybrid total hip arthroplasty, the reproducibility and accuracy of templating using digital radiographs were assessed. Digital images were manipulated using either a ten-pence coin as a marker to scale for magnification, or two digital-line methods using computer software. On-screen images were templated with standard acetate templates and compared with templating performed on hard-copy digital prints. The digital-line methods were the least reliable and accuracy of sizing compared with the inserted prostheses varied between −1.6% and +10.2%. The hard-copy radiographs showed better reproducibility than the ten-pence coin method, but were less accurate with 3.7% undersizing. The ten-pence coin method was the most accurate, with no significant differences for offset or acetabulum, and undersizing of only 0.9%. On-screen templating of digital radiographs with standard acetate templates is accurate and reproducible if a radiopaque marker such as a ten-pence coin is included when the original radiograph is taken