Aims

The prevalence of obesity is increasing substantially around the world. Elevated BMI increases the risk of complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We sought to evaluate trends in BMI and complication rates of obese patients undergoing primary THA over the last 30 years.

We have reviewed 202 consecutive primary hip replacements using a Freeman cemented femoral component after a mean period of follow-up of 64 months (23 to 113). There was only one revision for aseptic loosening. Retention of the femoral neck may act to reduce the torsional and shear forces at the implant-cement interface and may provide a seal against the migration of polyethylene-laden joint fluid in the potential joint space. The cemented Freeman femoral component with retention of the femoral neck was successful for up to nine years

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and radiographic outcomes at ten-year follow-up of three prospective consecutive series of patients each of which received a different design of cementless femoral components for total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies. Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup, typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available. Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability. The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned, it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.

We hypothesised that the removal of the subchondral bone plate (SCBP) for cemented acetabular component fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers advantages over retention by improving the cement-bone interface, without jeopardising implant stability. We have previously published two-year follow-up data of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), in which 50 patients with primary osteoarthritis were randomised to either retention or removal of the SCBP. The mean age of the retention group (n = 25, 13 males) was 70.0 years (sd 6.8). The mean age in the removal group (n = 25, 16 males) was 70.3 years (sd 7.9). Now we have followed up the patients at six (retention group, n = 21; removal group, n = 20) and ten years (retention group: n = 17, removal group: n = 18), administering clinical outcome questionnaires and radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and determining the presence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) on conventional radiographs. RSA demonstrated similar translation and rotation patterns up to six years. Between six and ten years, proximal acetabular component migration and changes of inclination were larger in the retention group, although the mean differences did not reach statistical significance. Differences in migration were driven by two patients in the SCBP retention group with extensive migration versus none in the SCBP removal group. The significant difference (p < 0.001) in the development of radiolucent lines in the retention group, previously observed at two years, increased even further during the course of follow-up (p < 0.001). While recognising SCBP removal is a more demanding technique, we conclude that, wherever possible, the SCBP should be removed to improve the cement–bone interface in order to maximise acetabular component stability and longevity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:35–44.