Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However, the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups, but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in the analyses. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates.

A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery. In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007), but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p < 0.001, Conserve: HR = 2.03, p < 0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001, Durom: HR = 1.67, p < 0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p < 0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48, p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p <  0.001). Once these influences had been removed, in 4873 male patients < 60 years old undergoing resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision was 1.59%.

In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year implant survival when the BHR was used.

We present a 25-year-old patient with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosis of both hips and both knees treated by staged bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty. She was followed up for 18 months. We discuss the pre-operative planning, surgical details and post-operative rehabilitation.

We performed a three-year radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study of the Elite Plus femoral component on 25 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. Additional assessments and measurements from standard radiographs were also made.

Subsidence of the stem occurred at the cement-stem interface. At 36 months the subsidence of the stem centroid was a mean of 0.30 mm (0.02 to 1.28), and was continuing at a slow rate. At the same time point, internal rotation and posterior migration of the femoral head had ceased. One stem migrated excessively and additional assessments suggested that this was probably due to high patient demand.

The failure rate of 4% in our study is consistent with data from arthroplasty registers but contrasts with poor results from another RSA study, and from some clinical studies. We believe that the surgical technique, particularly the use of high-viscosity cement, may have been an important factor contributing to our results.

Heterotopic ossification following joint replacement in the lower limb occurs in 3% to 90% of cases. Higher grades of heterotopic ossification can result in significant limitation of function and can negate the benefits of joint replacement. The understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition has improved in recent years. It would appear to be related to a combination of systemic and local factors, including over-expression of bone morphogenetic protein-4. There is currently little evidence to support the routine use of prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification in arthroplasty patients, but prophylaxis is recommended by some for high-risk patients. Radiotherapy given as one dose of 7 Gy to 8 Gy, either pre-operatively (< four hours before) or post-operatively (within 72 hours of surgery), appears to be more effective than indometacin therapy (75 mg daily for six weeks). In cases of prophylaxis against recurrent heterotopic ossification following excision, recent work has suggested that a combination of radiotherapy and indometacin is effective. Advances in our understanding of this condition may permit the development of newer, safer treatment modalities.

We carried out a retrospective case-control study in 80 patients who underwent a revision total hip replacement. Group A (40 patients) received tranexamic acid and intra-operative cell salvage. Group B (40 patients) was a matched control group and did not receive this management. Each group was divided into four subgroups: revision of both components, revision of both components with bone grafting, revision of the acetabular component with or without bone graft, and revision of the femoral component with or without bone graft.

In group A the total number of units transfused was 52, compared with 139 in group B, representing a reduction in blood usage of 62.5%. The mean amount of blood transfused from cell salvage in each group was 858 ml (113 to 2100), 477 ml (0 to 2680), 228 ml (75 to 315) and 464 ml (120 to 1125), respectively. There was a significant difference in the amount of blood returned between the groups (p < 0.0001).

In group A, 22 patients needed transfusion and in group B, 37 (p < 0.0001). A cost analysis calculation showed a total revenue saving of £70 000 and a potential saving throughout our facility of £318 288 per year.

Our results show that a significant reduction in blood transfusion can be made using combined cell salvage and tranexamic acid in revision surgery of the hip.