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 t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

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.

Aims

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the early migration of the TriFit cementless proximally coated tapered femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Cementless femoral stems are currently preferred for total hip replacement (THR) in the United States. Improvements in stem design, instrumentation and surgical technique have made this technology highly successful, reproducible, and applicable to the vast majority of patients requiring a THR. However, there are ongoing developments in some aspects of stem design that influence clinical results, the incidence of complications and their inherent adaptability in accommodating the needs of individual patients. Here we examine some of these design features.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:53–6.

We reviewed 44 consecutive revision hip replacements in 38 patients performed using the cement-in-cement technique. All were performed for acetabular loosening in the presence of a well-fixed femoral component. The mean follow-up was 5.1 years (2 to 10.1). Radiological analysis at final follow-up indicated no loosening of the femoral component, except for one case with a continuous radiolucent line in all zones and peri-prosthetic fracture which required further revision. Peri-operative complications included nine proximal femoral fractures (20.4%) and perforation of the proximal femur in one hip. In five hips wiring or fixation with a braided suture was undertaken but no additional augmentation was required. There was an improvement in the mean Japanese Orthopaedic Association score from 55.5 (28 to 81) pre-operatively to 77.8 (40 to 95) at final follow-up (p < 0.001). Revision using a cement-in-cement technique allows increased exposure for acetabular revision and is effective in the medium term. Further follow-up is required to assess the long-term results in the light of in vitro studies which have questioned the quality of the cement-in-cement bond.