Aims. Optimal exposure through the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) conducted on a regular operating theatre table is achieved with a standardized capsular releasing sequence in which the anterior capsule can be preserved or resected. We hypothesized that clinical outcomes and implant positioning would not be different in case a capsular sparing (CS) technique would be compared to capsular resection (CR). Methods. In this prospective trial, 219 hips in 190 patients were randomized to either the CS (n = 104) or CR (n = 115) cohort. In the CS cohort, a medial based anterior flap was created and sutured back in place at the end of the procedure. The anterior capsule was resected in the CR cohort. Primary outcome was defined as the difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after one year. PROMs (Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36)) were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Radiological parameters were analyzed to assess implant positioning and implant ingrowth. Adverse events were monitored. Results. At one year, there was no difference in HSS (p = 0.728), HOOS (Activity Daily Life, p = 0.347; Pain, p = 0.982; Quality of Life, p = 0.653; Sport, p = 0.994; Symptom, p = 0.459), or SF-36 (p = 0.338). Acetabular component inclination (p = 0.276) and anteversion (p = 0.392) as well as femoral component alignment (p = 0.351) were similar in both groups. There were no dislocations, readmissions, or reoperations in either group. The incidence of psoas tendinitis was six cases in the CS cohort (6%) and six cases in the CR cohort (5%) (p = 0.631). Conclusion. No clinical differences were found between resection or preservation of the anterior capsule when performing a primary THA through the DAA on a regular theatre table. In case of limited visibility during the learning curve, it might be advisable to resect a part of the anterior capsule. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):321–328

Aims

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components.

Aims

The aim of this study was to radiologically evaluate the quality of cement mantle and alignment achieved with a polished tapered cemented femoral stem inserted through the anterior approach and compared with the posterior approach.

The accurate reconstruction of hip anatomy and biomechanics is thought to be important in achieveing good clinical outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). To this end some newer hip designs have introduced further modularity into the design of the femoral component such that neck­shaft angle and anteversion, which can be adjusted intra-operatively. The clinical effect of this increased modularity is unknown. We have investigated the changes in these anatomical parameters following conventional THA with a prosthesis of predetermined neck–shaft angle and assessed the effect of changes in the hip anatomy on clinical outcomes.

In total, 44 patients (mean age 65.3 years (standard deviation (sd) 7); 17 male/27 female; mean body mass index 26.9 (kg/m²) (sd 3.1)) underwent a pre- and post-operative three-dimensional CT scanning of the hip. The pre- and post-operative neck–shaft angle, offset, hip centre of rotation, femoral anteversion, and stem alignment were measured. Additionally, a functional assessment and pain score were evaluated before surgery and at one year post-operatively and related to the post-operative anatomical changes.

The mean pre-operative neck–shaft angle was significantly increased by 2.8° from 128° (sd 6.2; 119° to 147°) to 131° (sd 2.1; 127° to 136°) (p = 0.009). The mean pre-operative anteversion was 24.9° (sd 8; 7.9 to 39.1) and reduced to 7.4° (sd 7.3; -11.6° to 25.9°) post-operatively (p < 0.001). The post-operative changes had no influence on function and pain. Using a standard uncemented femoral component, high pre- and post-operative variability of femoral anteversion and neck–shaft angles was found with a significant decrease of the post-operative anteversion and slight increase of the neck–shaft angles, but without any impact on clinical outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1615–22.

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing primary cementless total knee replacement (TKR) using porous tantalum performed by a group of surgical trainees. Clinical and radiological follow-up involved 79 females and 26 males encompassing 115 knees. The mean age was 66.9 years (36 to 85). Mean follow-up was 7 years (2 to 11). Tibial and patellar components were porous tantalum monoblock implants, and femoral components were posterior stabilised (PS) in design with cobalt–chromium fibre mesh. Radiological assessments were made for implant positioning, alignment, radiolucencies, lysis, and loosening. There was 95.7% survival of implants. There was no radiological evidence of loosening and no osteolysis found. No revisions were performed for aseptic loosening. Average tibial component alignment was 1.4° of varus (4°of valgus to 9° varus), and 6.2° (3° anterior to 15° posterior) of posterior slope. Mean femoral component alignment was 6.6° (1° to 11°) of valgus. Mean tibiofemoral alignment was 5.6° of valgus (7° varus to 16° valgus). Patellar tilt was a mean of 2.4° lateral (5° medial to 28° lateral). Patient satisfaction with improvement in pain was 91%. Cementless TKR incorporating porous tantalum yielded good clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean of follow-up of seven-years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):87–92.

Large femoral heads have become popular in total hip replacement (THR) as a method of reducing the risk of dislocation. However, if large heads are used in ceramic-on-ceramic THR, the liner must be thinner, which may increase the risk of fracture. To compare the rates of ceramic fracture and dislocation between 28 mm and 32 mm ceramic heads, 120 hips in 109 patients (51 men and 58 women, mean age 49.2 years) were randomised to THR with either a 28 mm or a 32 mm ceramic articulation. A total of 57/60 hips assigned to the 28 mm group and 55/60 hips assigned to the 32 mm group were followed for at least five years. No ceramic component fractures occured in any patient in either group. There was one dislocation in the 32 mm group and none in the 28 mm group (p = 0.464). No hip had detectable wear, focal osteolysis or prosthetic loosening. In our small study the 32 mm ceramic articulation appeared to be safe in terms of ceramic liner fracture.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1459–63.

The computed neck-shaft angle and the size of the femoral component were recorded in 100 consecutive hip resurfacings using imageless computer-navigation and compared with the angle measured before operation and with actual component implanted. The reliability of the registration was further analysed using ten cadaver femora. The mean absolute difference between the measured and navigated neck-shaft angle was 16.3° (0° to 52°). Navigation underestimated the measured neck-shaft angle in 38 patients and the correct implant size in 11. Registration of the cadaver femora tended to overestimate the correct implant size and provided a low level of repeatability in computing the neck-shaft angle.

Prudent pre-operative planning is advisable for use in conjunction with imageless navigation since misleading information may be registered intraoperatively, which could lead to inappropriate sizing and positioning of the femoral component in hip resurfacing.

We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the piriformis-sparing approach with the standard posterior approach used for total hip replacement (THR). We recruited 100 patients awaiting THR and randomly allocated them to either the piriformis-sparing approach or the standard posterior approach. Pre- and post-operative care programmes and rehabilitation regimes were identical for both groups. Observers were blinded to the allocation throughout; patients were blinded until the two-week assessment. Follow-up was at six weeks, three months, one year and two years. In all 11 patients died or were lost to follow-up.

There was no significant difference between groups for any of the functional outcomes. However, for patients in the piriformis-sparing group there was a trend towards a better six-minute walk test at two weeks and greater patient satisfaction at six weeks. The acetabular components were less anteverted (p = 0.005) and had a lower mean inclination angle (p = 0.02) in the piriformis-sparing group. However, in both groups the mean component positions were within Lewinnek’s safe zone. Surgeons perceived the piriformis-sparing approach to be significantly more difficult than the standard approach (p = 0.03), particularly in obese patients.

In conclusion, performing THR through a shorter incision involving sparing piriformis is more difficult and only provides short-term benefits compared with the standard posterior approach.