Aims

Pelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct.

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

Aims

The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of asymmetric crosslinked polyethylene liner use on the risk of revision of cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

Aims

This paper aims to review the evidence for patient-related factors associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy.

Plots are an elegant and effective way to represent data. At their best they encourage the reader and promote comprehension. A graphical representation can give a far more intuitive feel to the pattern of results in the study than a list of numerical data, or the result of a statistical calculation.

The temptation to exaggerate differences or relationships between variables by using broken axes, overlaid axes, or inconsistent scaling between plots should be avoided.

A plot should be self-explanatory and not complicated. It should make good use of the available space. The axes should be scaled appropriately and labelled with an appropriate dimension.

Plots are recognised statistical methods of presenting data and usually require specialised statistical software to create them. The statistical analysis and methods to generate the plots are as important as the methodology of the study itself. The software, including dates and version numbers, as well as statistical tests should be appropriately referenced.

Following some of the guidance provided in this article will enhance a manuscript.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1593–1603.

We report the outcome of total hip replacement in 29 failed metal-on-metal resurfacing hip replacements in which the primary surgery was performed between August 1995 and February 2005. The mean length of follow-up was five years (1.7 to 11.7). Of the 29 hip resurfacings, 19 acetabular components and all the femoral components were revised (28 uncemented stems and one cemented stem). There were no deaths and none of the patients was lost to follow-up. None of the hips underwent any further revision. The results of the revision resurfacing group were compared with those of a control group of age-matched patients. In the latter group there were 236 primary total hip replacements and 523 resurfacings performed during the same period by the same surgeons.

The outcome of the revision resurfacing group was comparable with that of the stemmed primary hip replacement group but was less good than that of the primary hip resurfacing group. Long-term follow-up is advocated to monitor the outcome of these cases.

Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement. A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of > 55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections. To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit

Femoral impaction bone allografting has been developed as a means of restoring bone stock in revision total hip replacement. We report the results of 75 consecutive patients (75 hips) with a mean age of 68 years (35 to 87) who underwent impaction grafting using the Exeter collarless, polished, tapered femoral stem between 1992 and 1998.

The mean follow-up period was 10.5 years (6.3 to 14.1). The median pre-operative bone defect score was 3 (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 3) using the Endo-Klinik classification.

The median subsidence at one year post-operatively was 2 mm (IQR 1 to 3). At the final review the median Harris hip score was 80.6 (IQR 67.6 to 88.9) and the median subsidence 2 mm (IQR 1 to 4). Incorporation of the allograft into trabecular bone and secondary remodelling were noted radiologically at the final follow-up in 87% (393 of 452 zones) and 40% (181 of 452 zones), respectively.

Subsidence of the Exeter stem correlated with the pre-operative Endo-Klinik bone loss score (p = 0.037). The degree of subsidence at one year had a strong association with long-term subsidence (p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between previous revision surgery and a poor Harris Hip score (p = 0.028), and those who had undergone previous revision surgery for infection had a higher risk of complications (p = 0.048). Survivorship at 10.5 years with any further femoral operation as the end-point was 92% (95% confidence interval 82 to 97).

We matched 78 patients with a loose cemented Charnley Elite Plus total hip replacement (THR) by age, gender, race, prosthesis and time from surgery with 49 patients with a well-fixed stable hip replacement, to determine if poor bone quality predisposes to loosening. Clinical, radiological, biomechanical and bone mineral density indicators of bone quality were assessed.

Patients with loose replacements had more pain, were more likely to have presented with atrophic arthritis and to have a history of fragility fracture, narrower femoral cortices and lower peri-prosthetic or lumbar spine bone mineral density (all t-test, p < 0.01). They also tended to be smokers (chi-squared test, p = 0.08). Vitamin-D deficiency was common, but not significantly different between the two groups (t-test, p = 0.31)

In this series of cemented hip replacements performed between 1994 and 1998, aseptic loosening was associated with poor bone quality. Patients with a THR should be screened for osteoporosis and have regular radiological surveillance.

We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups.

In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.

We reviewed 18 hips in 17 patients at a mean of five years after performing Sugioka's transtrochanteric anterior rotational osteotomy for avascular necrosis. The results were satisfactory in only three hips (17%). Twelve hips had been revised by hip replacement, revision was pending in one and two others were unsatisfactory. Hip replacement was not compromised by the previous Sugioka osteotomy. Fifteen hips (83%) had shown further collapse of the femoral head, and we conclude from this and from isotope scans that the osteotomy may have impaired the residual blood supply of the femoral head. It seems that ethnic origin may be a factor in the outcome of this procedure; we have abandoned its use