Aims. Although periacetabular osteotomies are widely used for the treatment of symptomatic dysplastic hips, long-term surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are still unclear. Accordingly, we assessed hip survival and PROMs at 20 years after transpositional osteotomy of the
Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes and factors contributing to failure of transposition osteotomy of the
Aims. Modular dual mobility (DM) prostheses in which a cobalt-chromium liner is inserted into a titanium acetabular shell (vs a monoblock acetabular component) have the advantage of allowing supplementary screw fixation, but the potential for corrosion between the liner and
Aims. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the minimum
five-year outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using
the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD) in patients
with Paprosky type III acetabular defects and destruction of the
inferior margin of the
We describe a little-known variety of hip dysplasia, termed ‘acetabular retroversion’, in which the alignment of the mouth of the
Aims. This study aimed to use intraoperative free electromyography to examine how the placement of a retractor at different positions along the anterior acetabular wall may affect the femoral nerve during total hip arthroplasty (THA) when undertaken using the direct anterior approach (THA-DAA). Methods. Intraoperative free electromyography was performed during primary THA-DAA in 82 patients (94 hips). The highest position of the anterior acetabular wall was defined as the “12 o’clock” position (middle position) when the patient was in supine position. After exposure of the
We have divided Severin group-V severely dysplastic hips with a false into three subtypes, based on the height and shape of the socket. We performed rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO) in 19 hips in 17 young adults with a type-1 ‘low’ false
Our aim in this prospective study was to compare the bone mineral density (BMD) around cementless acetabular and femoral components which were identical in geometry and had the same alumina modular femoral head, but differed in regard to the material of the acetabular liners (alumina ceramic or polyethylene) in 50 patients (100 hips) who had undergone bilateral simultaneous primary total hip replacement. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans of the pelvis and proximal femur were obtained at one week, at one year, and annually thereafter during the five-year period of the study. At the final follow-up, the mean BMD had increased significantly in each group in acetabular zone I of DeLee and Charnley (20% (15% to 26%), p = 0.003), but had decreased in acetabular zone II (24% (18% to 36%) in the alumina group and 25% (17% to 31%) in the polyethylene group, p = 0.001). There was an increase in the mean BMD in zone III of 2% (0.8% to 3.2%) in the alumina group and 1% (0.6% to 2.2%) in the polyethylene group (p = 0.315). There was a decrease in the mean BMD in the calcar region (femoral zone 7) of 15% (8% to 24%) in the alumina group and 14% (6% to 23%) in the polyethylene group (p <
0.001). The mean bone loss in femoral zone 1 of Gruen et al was 2% (1.1% to 3.1%) in the alumina group and 3% (1.3% to 4.3%) in the polyethylene group (p = 0.03), and in femoral zone 6, the mean bone loss was 15% (9% to 27%) in the alumina group and 14% (11% to 29%) in the polyethylene group compared with baseline values. There was an increase in the mean BMD on the final scans in femoral zones 2 (p = 0.04), 3 (p = 0.04), 4 (p = 0.12) and 5 (p = 0.049) in both groups. There was thus no significant difference in the bone remodelling of the
A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic
surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular
and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing
with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based
substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these
options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date
there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using
bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of
revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating
the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs
appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies
have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing
a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account
the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a lateral rim mesh on the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients, aged 50 years or younger. We compared a study group of 235 patients (257 hips) who received a primary THA with the use of impaction bone grafting (IBG) with an additional lateral rim mesh with a group of 306 patients (343 hips) who received IBG in the absence of a lateral rim mesh during the same period from 1988 to 2015. In the mesh group, there were 74 male and 183 female patients, with a mean age of 35 years (13 to 50). In the no-mesh group, there were 173 male and 170 female patients, with a mean age of 38 years (12.6 to 50). Cox regression analyses were performed to study the effect of a lateral rim mesh on acetabular component survival. Kaplan–Meier analyses with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed to estimate the survival of the acetabular implant.Aims
Patients and Methods
The clinical and radiological results of 50 consecutive acetabular reconstructions in 48 patients using impaction grafting have been retrospectively reviewed. A 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and Apapore 60, a synthetic bone graft substitute, was used in all cases. There were 13 complex primary and 37 revision procedures with a mean follow-up of five years (3.4 to 7.6). The clinical survival rate was 100%, with improvements in the mean Harris Hip Scores for pain and function. Radiologically, 30 acetabular grafts showed evidence of incorporation, ten had radiolucent lines and two acetabular components migrated initially before stabilising. Acetabular reconstruction in both primary and revision surgery using a 1:1 mixture of frozen, ground, irriadiated bone and Apapore 60 appears to be a reliable method of managing acetabular defects. Longer follow-up will be required to establish whether this technique is as effective as using fresh-frozen allograft.
This review summarises the technique of impaction
grafting with mesh augmentation for the treatment of uncontained
acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. The ideal acetabular revision should restore bone stock, use
a small socket in the near-anatomic position, and provide durable
fixation. Impaction bone grafting, which has been in use for over
40 years, offers the ability to achieve these goals in uncontained
defects. The precepts of modern, revision impaction grafting are
that the segmental or cavitary defects must be supported with a
mesh; the contained cavity is filled with vigorously impacted morselised
fresh-frozen allograft; and finally, acrylic cement is used to stabilise
the graft and provide rigid, long-lasting fixation of the revised
acetabular component. Favourable results have been published with this technique. While
having its limitations, it is a viable option to address large acetabular
defects in revision arthroplasty. Cite this article:
We report catastrophic early failure of a cemented total hip replacement comprising a modular femoral component with a Zirconia ceramic head and an acetabular component of cross-linked ultra-high molecular-weight polyethylene (Hylamer). Between 1995 and 1999 we implanted 29 hips in 26 patients with a mean age of 49.2 years. Survivorship analysis in this group revealed a failure rate of 67.6% at five years. All hips which failed did so because of aseptic loosening with progressive osteolysis or radiolucencies. We therefore recommend early and regular review of all patients with this combination of implants and early revision surgery in order to avoid massive bone loss.
Accurate placement of the acetabular component during total hip
arthroplasty (THA) is an important factor in the success of the
procedure. However, the reported accuracy varies greatly and is
dependent upon whether free hand or navigated techniques are used.
The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of an instrument
system that incorporates 3D printed, patient-specific guides designed
to optimise the placement of the acetabular component. A total of 100 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled
and the accuracy of placement of the acetabular component was measured
using post-operative CT scans.Aims
Patients and Methods
We report on the outcome of the Exeter Contemporary flanged cemented
all-polyethylene acetabular component with a mean follow-up of 12
years (10 to 13.9). This study reviewed 203 hips in 194 patients.
129 hips in 122 patients are still A retrospective review was undertaken of a consecutive series
of 203 routine primary cemented total hip arthroplasties (THA) in
194 patients.Aims
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients
(50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous
revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised
allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of
the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with
allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely
assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision
and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host
bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision
surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics,
rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated
the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone
stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using
multivariate analysis. At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with
no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column,
seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity.
When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the
previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration
of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a
significant improvement (p <
0.001). Morselised allografting
at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of
bone stock. In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular
component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were
47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available
for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had
a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical
or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic
loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was
75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with
aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening
was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less
when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040). The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for
massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host
bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain
extent. Cite this article:
There are few reports describing the technique
of managing acetabular protrusio in primary total hip replacement. Most
are small series with different methods of addressing the challenges
of significant medial and proximal migration of the joint centre,
deficient medial bone and reduced peripheral bony support to the
acetabular component. We describe our technique and the clinical
and radiological outcome of using impacted morsellised autograft
with a porous-coated cementless cup in 30 primary THRs with mild
(n = 8), moderate (n = 10) and severe (n = 12) grades of acetabular
protrusio. The mean Harris hip score had improved from 52 pre-operatively
to 85 at a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (2 to 10). At final follow-up,
27 hips (90%) had a good or excellent result, two (7%) had a fair
result and one (3%) had a poor result. All bone grafts had united
by the sixth post-operative month and none of the hips showed any
radiological evidence of recurrence of protrusio, osteolysis or
loosening. By using impacted morsellised autograft and cementless
acetabular components it was possible to achieve restoration of
hip mechanics, provide a biological solution to bone deficiency
and ensure long-term fixation without recurrence in arthritic hips
with protrusio undergoing THR. Cite this article:
It is accepted that resurfacing hip replacement
preserves the bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur better than total
hip replacement (THR). However, no studies have investigated any
possible difference on the acetabular side. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 39 patients were randomised
into two groups to receive either a resurfacing or a THR and were
followed for two years. One patient’s resurfacing subsequently failed,
leaving 19 patients in each group. Resurfaced replacements maintained proximal femoral BMD and,
compared with THR, had an increased bone mineral density in Gruen
zones 2, 3, 6, and particularly zone 7, with a gain of 7.5% (95%
confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 12.5) compared with a loss of 14.6%
(95% CI 7.6 to 21.6). Resurfacing replacements maintained the BMD
of the medial femoral neck and increased that in the lateral zones
between 12.8% (95% CI 4.3 to 21.4) and 25.9% (95% CI 7.1 to 44.6). On the acetabular side, BMD was similar in every zone at each
point in time. The mean BMD of all acetabular regions in the resurfaced
group was reduced to 96.2% (95% CI 93.7 to 98.6) and for the total
hip replacement group to 97.6% (95% CI 93.7 to 101.5) (p = 0.4863).
A mean total loss of 3.7% (95% CI 1.0 to 6.5) and 4.9% (95% CI 0.8
to 9.0) of BMD was found above the acetabular component in W1 and
10.2% (95% CI 0.9 to 19.4) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 14.4) medial
to the implant in W2 for resurfaced replacements and THRs respectively.
Resurfacing resulted in a mean loss of BMD of 6.7% (95% CI 0.7 to
12.7) in W3 but the BMD inferior to the acetabular component was
maintained in both groups. These results suggest that the ability of a resurfacing hip replacement
to preserve BMD only applies to the femoral side.
The technique of femoral cement-in-cement revision
is well established, but there are no previous series reporting its
use on the acetabular side at the time of revision total hip replacement.
We describe the technique and report the outcome of 60 consecutive
acetabular cement-in-cement revisions in 59 patients at a mean follow-up
of 8.5 years (5 to 12). All had a radiologically and clinically
well-fixed acetabular cement mantle at the time of revision. During
the follow-up 29 patients died, but no hips were lost to follow-up.
The two most common indications for acetabular revision were recurrent
dislocation (46, 77%) and to complement femoral revision (12, 20%). Of the 60 hips, there were two cases of aseptic loosening of
the acetabular component (3.3%) requiring re-revision. No other
hip was clinically or radiologically loose (96.7%) at the latest
follow-up. One hip was re-revised for infection, four for recurrent
dislocation and one for disarticulation of a constrained component.
At five years the Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 100% for aseptic
loosening and 92.2% (95% CI 84.8 to 99.6), with revision for any cause
as the endpoint. These results support the use of cement-in-cement revision on
the acetabular side in appropriate cases. Theoretical advantages
include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, reduced
risk of complications and durable fixation.
The purpose of this study was to compare the
amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless
total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter
of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis,
64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively
enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively:
the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used,
the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic
femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size
of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral
head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples
Student’s