Primary uncemented femoral stems reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 2005 were included in this prospective observational study. There were 11 516 hips (9679 patients) and 14 different designs of stem. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and Cox regression were used to analyse the data. With aseptic loosening as the end-point, all currently used designs performed excellently with survival of 96% to 100% at ten years. With the end-point as stem revision for any cause, the long-term results of the different designs varied from poor to excellent, with survival at 15 years ranging between 29% and 97%. Follow-up for longer than seven years was needed to identify some of the poorly-performing designs. There were differences between the stems; the Corail, used in 5456 hips, was the most frequently used stem with a survival of 97% at 15 years. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of revision of × 1.3 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.52), but age and diagnosis had no influence on the results. Overall, modern uncemented femoral stems performed well. Moderate differences in survival between well-performing stems should be interpreted with caution since the differences may be caused by factors other than the stem itself

We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied

Aims. To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. Methods. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). Results. Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptom state for the WOMAC function score (76% vs 55%; p = 0.002). In a multivariable analysis, the point estimate for the increase in WOMAC function score using the posterior approach was 10.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 17.2; p = 0.005), which is above the minimal clinically important improvement. The patients in the posterior approach group also reported better mean HRQoL scores and were more likely to be satisfied with their hip arthroplasty (77% vs 55%; p = 0.001). Conclusion. In patients treated with a single, successful DAIR procedure for deep infection of a primary THA, the use of the posterior approach in both primary surgery and DAIR was associated with less limping, better functional outcome, better HRQoL, and higher patient satisfaction compared with cases where both were performed using the transgluteal approach. The observed differences in functional outcome and patient satisfaction were clinically relevant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1662–1669

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has shown that several designs of uncemented femoral stems give good or excellent survivorship. The overall findings for uncemented total hip replacement however, have been disappointing because of poor results with the use of metal-backed acetabular components. In this study, we exclusively investigated the medium-to long-term performance of primary uncemented metal-backed acetabular components. A total of 9113 primary uncemented acetabular components were implanted in 7937 patients between 1987 and 2007. These were included in a prospective, population-based observational study. All the implants were modular and metal-backed with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners. The femoral heads were made of stainless steel, cobalt-chrome (CoCr) alloy or alumina ceramic. In all, seven different designs of acetabular component were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier survivorship method and Cox regression analysis. Most acetabular components performed well up to seven years. When the endpoint was revision of the acetabular component because of aseptic loosening, the survival ranged between 87% and 100% at ten years. However, when the endpoint was revision for any reason, the survival estimates were 81% to 92% for the same implants at ten years. Aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis and dislocation were the main reasons for the relatively poor overall performance of the acetabular components. Prostheses with alumina heads performed slightly better than those with stainless steel or CoCr alloy in subgroups. Whereas most acetabular components performed well at seven years, the survivorship declined with longer follow-up. Fixation was generally good. None of the metal-backed uncemented acetabular components with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners in our study had satisfactory long-term results because of high rates of wear, osteolysis, aseptic loosening and dislocation

We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered

Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we have the assessed survival of 17 323 primary Charnley hip prostheses in patients with osteoarthritis based upon the type of cement used for the fixation of the implant. Overall, 9.2% had been revised after follow-up for ten years; 71% of the failures involved aseptic loosening of the femoral component. We observed significantly increased rates of failure for prostheses inserted with CMW1 and CMW3 cements. Using implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos cement as the reference, the adjusted Cox regression failure rate ratios were 1.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.4) for implants cemented with plain Palacos, 1.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6) for Simplex, 2.1 (95% 1.5 to 2.9) for gentamicin-containing CMW1, 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.4) for plain CMW1 and 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9) for implants fixed with CMW3 cement. The adjusted failure rate at ten years varied from 5.9% for implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos to 17% for those fixed with CMW3

We have assessed the effect of different regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis on the survival of total hip implants, comparing antibiotics administered both systemically and in the bone cement, systemically only, in the bone cement only and with no antibiotics given. We studied 10 905 primary cemented total hip replacements, performed for osteoarthritis of the hip and reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 1995. Cox-estimated failure-rate ratios (FRR) are presented with adjustment for gender, age, the brand of cement, the prosthesis, the type of operating theatre and the operating time. For revisions performed for infection (39 operations), the lowest rate of revision was found among patients receiving antibiotic-containing cement plus systemic antibiotics (n = 5804). The revision rate for the 4586 patients receiving systemic antibiotics only was 4.3 times greater (95% CI 1.7 to 11.0, p = 0.001); in 239 with antibiotics in the bone cement only it was 6.3 times greater (CI 1.6 to 25.0, p = 0.003); and in the 276 who did not receive antibiotics it was by 11.5 times greater (CI 2.1 to 63.0, p = 0.002). Adjustment for the total amount of systemic antibiotic administered did not change the results. We also observed an increased revision rate for aseptic loosening (109 operations) comparing the systemic-only (FRR = 1.8, CI 1.1 to 2.9, p = 0.01) and the cement-only regimes (FRR = 2.6, CI 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.02) with the combined dosage. Our findings show that systemic antibiotics combined with antibiotic-containing bone cement led to fewer revisions than the other methods

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

Aims

The aim of this large registry-based study was to compare mid-term survival rates of cemented femoral stems of different designs used in hemiarthroplasty for a fracture of the femoral neck.

Aims

The Corail stem has good long-term results. After four years of using this stem, we have detected a small group of patients who have presented with symptomatic metaphyseal debonding. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of this complication, to delineate the characteristics of patients presenting with this complication and to compare these patients with asymptomatic controls to determine any important predisposing factors.

Revision of a cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip may be a hazardous procedure with high rates of intra-operative complications. Removing well-fixed cement is time consuming and risks damaging already weak bone or perforating the femoral shaft. The cement-in-cement method avoids removal of intact cement and has shown good results when used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of this technique for the revision of a hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported.

A total of 28 consecutive hemiarthroplasties (in 28 patients) were revised to a THA using an Exeter stem and the cement-in-cement technique. There were four men and 24 women; their mean age was 80 years (35 to 93). Clinical and radiographic data, as well as operative notes, were collected prospectively and no patient was lost to follow-up.

Four patients died within two years of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 70 months (25 to 124). Intra-operatively there was one proximal perforation, one crack of the femoral calcar and one acetabular fracture. No femoral components have required subsequent revision for aseptic loosening or are radiologically loose.

Four patients with late complications (14%) have since undergone surgery (two for a peri-prosthetic fracture, and one each for deep infection and recurrent dislocation) resulting in an overall major rate of complication of 35.7%.

The cement-in-cement technique provides reliable femoral fixation in this elderly population and may reduce operating time and rates of complication.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1623–7.

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.

Despite a lack of long-term follow-up, there is an increasing trend towards using femoral heads of large diameter in total hip replacement (THR), partly because of the perceived advantage of lower rates of dislocation. However, increasing the size of the femoral head is not the only way to reduce the rate of dislocation; optimal alignment of the components and repair of the posterior capsule could achieve a similar effect.

In this prospective study of 512 cemented unilateral THRs (Male:Female 230:282) performed between 2004 and 2011, we aimed to determine the rate of dislocation in patients who received a 22 mm head on a 9/10 Morse taper through a posterior approach with capsular repair and using the transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) as a guide for the alignment of the acetabular component. The mean age of the patients at operation was 67 years (35 to 89). The mean follow-up was 2.8 years (0.5 to 6.6). Pre- and post-operative assessment included Oxford hip, Short Form-12 and modified University of California Los Angeles and Merle D’Aubigne scores. The angles of inclination and anteversion of the acetabular components were measured using radiological software. There were four dislocations (0.78%), all of which were anterior.

In conclusion, THR with a 22 mm diameter head performed through a posterior approach with capsular repair and using the TAL as a guide for the alignment of the acetabular component was associated with a low rate of dislocation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1202–6.

Increased femoral head size may reduce dislocation rates following total hip replacement. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales has highlighted a statistically significant increase in the use of femoral heads ≥ 36 mm in diameter from 5% in 2005 to 26% in 2009, together with an increase in the use of the posterior approach. The aim of this study was to determine whether rates of dislocation have fallen over the same period. National data for England for 247 546 procedures were analysed in order to determine trends in the rate of dislocation at three, six, 12 and 18 months after operation during this time. The 18-month revision rates were also examined.

Between 2005 and 2009 there were significant decreases in cumulative dislocations at three months (1.12% to 0.86%), six months (1.25% to 0.96%) and 12 months (1.42% to 1.11%) (all p < 0.001), and at 18 months (1.56% to 1.31%) for the period 2005 to 2008 (p < 0.001). The 18-month revision rates did not significantly change during the study period (1.26% to 1.39%, odds ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.24), p = 0.118). There was no evidence of changes in the coding of dislocations during this time.

These data have revealed a significant reduction in dislocations associated with the use of large femoral head sizes, with no change in the 18-month revision rate.

The in-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty involves retaining the original cement-bone interface. This has been proven to be a biomechanically stronger method than recementing after complete removal of the original cement mantle.

This study reviewed a series of 54 consecutive revision hip arthroplasty procedures, using the in-cement technique, between November 1999 and November 2003. Clinical and radiological follow-up included functional assessment.

There were 54 procedures performed in 51 patients, whose mean age at surgery was 70.3 years (45 to 85). A total of 42 were available at a mean follow-up of 29.2 months (6 to 51). There was no radiological evidence of loosening. Functional assessments were available for 40 patients who had a mean Harris hip score of 85.2 (51.9 to 98.5), a mean Oxford hip score of 19.6 (12 to 41), a mean UCLA activity profile score of 5.9 (3 to 8) and a mean SF-36 score of 78.0 (31.6 to 100).

The in-cement technique provides consistent, high functional outcomes and should be considered in appropriately selected cases.

Between 1999 and 2005, 10 264 patients who had undergone total hip replacement (THR) for subcapital fracture of the hip were compared with 76 520 in whom THR had been performed for other reasons. All the cases were identified through the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The THRs performed as primary treatment for fracture were also compared with those done after failure of internal fixation.

After seven years the rate of revision was higher in THR after fracture (4.4% vs 2.9%). Dislocation and periprosthetic fracture were the most common causes of revision. The risk was higher in men than in women. The type of femoral component and the surgical approach influenced the risk. After correction for gender, type of component and the surgical approach the revision rates were similar in the primary and secondary fracture THR groups.

Total hip replacement is therefore a safe method for both the primary and secondary management of fracture of the hip.

We have reviewed the rate of revision of fully cemented, hybrid and uncemented primary total hip replacements (THRs) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and December 2006 to determine whether there was any statistically significant difference in the early survival and reason for revision in these different types of fixation. The percentage rate of revision was calculated per 100 component years and compared with the reason for revision, the type of fixation and the age of the patients.

Of the 42 665 primary THRs registered, 920 (2.16%) underwent revision requiring change of at least one component. Fully-cemented THRs had a lower rate of revision when considering all causes for failure (p < 0.001), but below the age of 65 years uncemented THRs had a lower rate (p < 0.01). The rate of revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening was less in the uncemented and hybrid groups compared with that in the fully cemented group (p < 0.001), and the rate of revision of cemented and uncemented femoral components was similar, except in patients over 75 years of age in whom revision of cemented femoral components was significantly less frequent (p < 0.02). Revision for infection was more common in patients aged below 65 years and in cemented and hybrid THRs compared with cementless THRs (p < 0.001). Dislocation was the most common cause of revision for all types of fixation and was more frequent in both uncemented acetabular groups (p < 0.001). The experience of the surgeon did not affect the findings.

Although cemented THR had the lowest rate of revision for all causes in the short term (90 days), uncemented THR had the lowest rate of aseptic loosening in patients under 65 years of age and had rates comparable with international rates of aseptic loosening in those over 65 years.