We describe the application of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthetic replacement in skeletally-mature patients undergoing revision for failed joint replacement with resultant limb-length inequality after malignant or non-malignant disease. This prosthesis was developed for tumour surgery in skeletally-immature patients but has now been adapted for use in revision procedures to reconstruct the joint or facilitate an arthrodesis, replace bony defects and allow limb length to be restored gradually in the post-operative period. We record the short-term results in nine patients who have had this procedure after multiple previous reconstructive operations. In six, the initial reconstruction had been performed with either allograft or endoprosthetic replacement for neoplastic disease and in three for non-neoplastic disease. The essential components of the prosthesis are a magnetic disc, a gearbox and a drive screw which allows painless lengthening of the prosthesis using the principle of electromagnetic induction. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (18 to 68) with a mean follow-up of 34 months (12 to 62). They had previously undergone a mean of six (2 to 14) open procedures on the affected limb before revision with the non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis. The mean length gained was 56 mm (19 to 107) requiring a mean of nine (3 to 20) lengthening episodes performed in the outpatient department. There was one case of recurrent infection after revision of a previously infected implant and one fracture of the prosthesis after a fall. No amputations were performed. Planned exchange of the prosthesis was required in three patients after attainment of the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There was no failure of the lengthening mechanism. The Mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society rating score was 22 of 30 available points (18 to 28). The use of a non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis in this manner provided patients with good functional results and restoration of leg-length equality, without the need for multiple open lengthening procedures

The results of hip and knee replacement surgery are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are both major operations and have recognised complications. We present a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and 523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection. Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in each group.

Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement, although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:122–6.

Aims

We investigated changes in the axial alignment of the ipsilateral hip and knee after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

We have investigated the accuracy of the templating of digital radiographs in planning total hip replacement using two common object-based calibration methods with the ball placed laterally (method 1) or medially (method 2) and compared them with two non-object-based methods. The latter comprised the application of a fixed magnification of 121% (method 3) and calculation of magnification based on the object-film-distance (method 4). We studied the post-operative radiographs of 57 patients (19 men, 38 women, mean age 73 years (53 to 89)) using the measured diameter of the prosthetic femoral head and comparing it with the true value.

Both object-based methods (1 and 2) produced large errors (mean/maximum: 2.55%/17.4% and 2.04%/6.46%, respectively). Method 3 applying a fixed magnification and method 4 (object-film-distance) produced smaller errors (mean/maximum 1.42%/5.22% and 1.57%/4.24%, respectively; p < 0.01). The latter results were clinically relevant and acceptable when planning was allowed to within one implant size. Object-based calibration (methods 1 and 2) has fundamental problems with the correct placement of the calibration ball. The accuracy of the fixed magnification (method 3) matched that of object-film-distance (method 4) and was the most reliable and efficient calibration method in digital templating.