There is great variability in acetabular component orientation following hip replacement. The aims of this study were to compare the component orientation at impaction with the orientation measured on post-operative radiographs and identify factors that influence the difference between the two. A total of 67 hip replacements (52 total hip replacements and 15 hip resurfacings) were prospectively studied. Intra-operatively, the orientation of the acetabular component after impaction relative to the operating table was measured using a validated stereo-photogrammetry protocol. Post-operatively, the radiographic orientation was measured; the mean inclination/anteversion was 43° (sd 6°)/ 19° (sd 7°). A simulated radiographic orientation was calculated based on how the orientation would have appeared had an on-table radiograph been taken intra-operatively. The mean difference between radiographic and intra-operative inclination/anteversion was 5° (sd 5°)/ -8° (sd 8°). The mean difference between simulated radiographic and intra-operative inclination/anteversion, which quantifies the effect of the different way acetabular orientation is measured, was 3°/-6° (sd 2°). The mean difference between radiographic and simulated radiographic orientation inclination/anteversion, which is a manifestation of the change in pelvic position between component impaction and radiograph, was 1°/-2° (sd 7°).

This study demonstrated that in order to achieve a specific radiographic orientation target, surgeons should implant the acetabular component 5° less inclined and 8° more anteverted than their target. Great variability (2 sd about ± 15°) in the post-operative radiographic cup orientation was seen. The two equally contributing causes for this are variability in the orientation at which the cup is implanted, and the change in pelvic position between impaction and post-operative radiograph.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1290–7

The orientation of the acetabular component is influenced not only by the orientation at which the surgeon implants the component, but also the orientation of the pelvis at the time of implantation. Hence, the orientation of the pelvis at set-up and its movement during the operation, are important. During 67 hip replacements, using a validated photogrammetric technique, we measured how three surgeons orientated the patient’s pelvis, how much the pelvis moved during surgery, and what effect these had on the final orientation of the acetabular component. Pelvic orientation at set-up, varied widely (mean (± 2, standard deviation (sd))): tilt 8° (2sd ±32), obliquity –4° (2sd ±12), rotation –8° (2sd ±14). Significant differences in pelvic positioning were detected between surgeons (p < 0.001). The mean angular movement of the pelvis between set-up and component implantation was 9° (sd 6). Factors influencing pelvic movement included surgeon, approach (posterior >  lateral), procedure (hip resurfacing > total hip replacement) and type of support (p < 0.001). Although, on average, surgeons achieved their desired acetabular component orientation, there was considerable variability (2sd ±16) in component orientation. We conclude that inconsistency in positioning the patient at set-up and movement of the pelvis during the operation account for much of the variation in acetabular component orientation. Improved methods of positioning and holding the pelvis are required.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:876–83.

We sought to establish the incidence of joint failure secondary to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in a large, three surgeon, multicentre study involving 4226 hips with a follow-up of 10 to 142 months. Three implants were studied: the Articular Surface Replacement; the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing; and the Conserve Plus. Retrieved implants underwent analysis using a co-ordinate measuring machine to determine volumetric wear. There were 58 failures associated with ARMD. The median chromium and cobalt concentrations in the failed group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a failure rate in the patients with Articular Surface Replacement of 9.8% at five years, compared with < 1% at five years for the Conserve Plus and 1.5% at ten years for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Two ARMD patients had relatively low wear of the retrieved components. Increased wear from the metal-on-metal bearing surface was associated with an increased rate of failure secondary to ARMD. However, the extent of tissue destruction at revision surgery did not appear to be dose-related to the volumetric wear.

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being used increasingly as an alternative to total hip replacement, especially for young active patients. There is concern about necrosis of the femoral head after resurfacing which can result in fracture and loosening. Most systems use a cemented femoral component, with the potential for thermal necrosis of the cancellous bone of the reamed femoral head. We used thermal probes to record temperatures close to the cement-bone interface during resurfacing arthroplasty.

The maximum temperature recorded at the cement-bone interface in four cases was approximately 68°C which was higher than that reported to kill osteocytes. A modified surgical technique using insertion of a suction cannula into the lesser trochanter, generous pulsed lavage and early reduction of the joint significantly reduced the maximum recorded cancellous bone temperature to approximately 36°C in five cases (p = 0.014).

We recommend the modified technique since it significantly reduces temperatures at the cement-bone interface.