We sought to establish the incidence of
Joint-preserving surgery of the hip (JPSH) has evolved considerably
and now includes a number of procedures, including arthroscopy,
surgical dislocation, and redirectional osteotomies of the femur
and acetabulum. There are a number of different factors which lead
to failure of JPSH. Consequently, it is of interest to assess the
various modes of failure in order to continue to identify best practice
and the indications for these procedures. Using a retrospective observational study design, we reviewed
1013 patients who had undergone JPSH by a single surgeon between
2005 and 2015. There were 509 men and 504 women with a mean age
of 39 years (16 to 78). Of the 1013 operations, 783 were arthroscopies,
122 surgical dislocations, and 108 peri-acetabular osteotomies (PAO).
We analysed the overall failure rates and modes of failure. Re-operations
were categorised into four groups: Mode 1 was arthritis progression
or organ failure leading to total hip arthroplasty (THA); Mode 2
was an Incorrect diagnosis/procedure; Mode 3 resulted from malcorrection
of femur (type A), acetabulum (type B), or labrum (type C) and Mode 4
resulted from an unintended consequence of the initial surgical
intervention.Aims
Patients and Methods
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article:
Early failure associated with adverse reactions to metal debris is an emerging problem after hip resurfacing but the exact mechanism is unclear. We analysed our entire series of 660 metal-on-metal resurfacings (Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR)) and large-bearing ASR total hip replacements, to establish associations with metal debris-related failures. Clinical and radiological outcomes, metal ion levels, explant studies and lymphocyte transformation tests were performed. A total of 17 patients (3.4%) were identified (all ASR bearings) with adverse reactions to metal debris, for which revision was required. This group had significantly smaller components, significantly higher acetabular component anteversion, and significantly higher whole concentrations of blood and joint chromium and cobalt ions than asymptomatic patients did (all p <
0.001). Post-revision lymphocyte transformation tests on this group showed no reactivity to chromium or cobalt ions. Explants from these revisions had greater surface wear than retrievals for uncomplicated fractures. The absence of adverse reactions to metal debris in patients with well-positioned implants usually implies high component wear. Surgeons must consider implant design, expected component size and acetabular component positioning in order to reduce early failures when performing large-bearing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and replacement.
