When fracture of an extensively porous-coated femoral component occurs, its removal at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may require a femoral osteotomy and the use of a trephine. The remaining cortical bone after using the trephine may develop thermally induced necrosis. A retrospective review identified 11 fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral components requiring removal using a trephine with a minimum of two years of follow-up. . The mean time to failure was 4.6 years (1.7 to 9.1, standard deviation (. sd. ) 2.3). These were revised using a larger extensively porous coated component, fluted tapered modular component, a proximally coated modular component, or a proximal femoral replacement. The mean clinical follow-up after revision THA was 4.9 years (2 to 22, . sd. 3.1). The mean diameter of the femoral component increased from 12.7 mm (. sd. 1.9) to 16.2 mm (. sd. 3.4; p >  0.001). Two revision components had radiographic evidence of subsidence that remained radiographically stable at final follow-up. The most common post-operative complication was instability affecting six patients (54.5%) on at least one occasion. . A total of four patients (36.4%) required further revision: three for instability and one for fracture of the revision component. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean Harris hip score before implant fracture (82.4; . sd. 18.3) and after trephine removal and revision THA (81.2; . sd. 14.8, p = 0.918). . These findings suggest that removal of a fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral component using a trephine does not compromise subsequent fixation at revision THA and the patient’s pre-operative level of function can be restored. However, the loss of proximal bone stock before revision may be associated with a high rate of dislocation post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1192–6

Aims

The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique.

Aims

This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection.

Aims. To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. Methods. The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. A total of 675,078 primary and 74,223 first revision THAs were included (of which 6,131 were performed for PFF). Following revision for PFF, mortality ranged from 9% at 90 days, 21% at one year, and 60% at five years in the highest risk group (males, ≥ 75 years, ASA ≥ 3) to 0.6%, 1.4%, and 5.5%, respectively, for the lowest risk group (females, < 75 years, ASA ≤ 2). Mortality was greater in all groups following first revision THA for PFF than for primary THA. Compared to mortality risk after first revision THA for infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening, revision for PFF was associated with higher five-year mortality in all groups except males < 75 years with an ASA ≤ 2. Conclusion. Mortality risk after revision THA for PFF is high, reaching 60% at five years in the highest risk patient group. In comparison to other common indications for revision, PFF demonstrated the highest overall risk of mortality at five years. These estimates can be used in the surgical decision-making process and when counselling patients and carers regarding surgical risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1670–1674

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution. Methods. All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening. Results. The mean age of the patients at the time of the initial THA was 38.6 years (SD 9.3). The mean follow-up of the THA was 8.7 years (2.0 to 31.5). The rate of survival for all primary THAs, acetabular components only, and femoral components only at 20 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason, was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5 to 72.2), 69.1% (95% CI 63.0 to 74.4), and 83.2% (95% CI 78.1 to 87.3), respectively. A total of 138 revisions were performed. The mean age at the time of revision was 48.2 years (23 to 72). Survival of all subsequent revision procedures, revised acetabular, and revised femoral components at 15 years’ follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason was 70.3% (95% CI 56.1 to 80.7), 69.7% (95% CI 54.3 to 80.7), and 76.2% (95% CI 57.8 to 87.4), respectively. A Girdlestone excision arthroplasty was required in six of 860 patients (0.7%). Conclusion. The long-term outcome of cemented primary and subsequent revision THA is promising in these young patients. We showed that our philosophy of using impaction bone grafting in patients with acetabular and femoral defects is a very suitable option when treating young patients. Surgeons should realize that knowledge of the outcome of subsequent revision surgery, which is inevitable in young patients, must be communicated to this group of patients prior to their initial THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):368–375

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing revision for an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with an aseptic revision THA. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, between 2012 and 2017, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing a revision THA (27134, 27137, 27138). International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for infection of an implant or device were used to identify patients undergoing an infected revision THA. CPT-27132 coupled with ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes for infection were used to identify patients undergoing a two-stage revision. A total of 13 556 patients were included; 1606 (11.8%) underwent a revision THA due to infection and there were 11 951 (88.2%) aseptic revisions. Results. Patients undergoing an infected revision had a significantly greater length of stay of more than three days (p < 0.001), higher odds of any 30-day complication (p < 0.001), readmission within 30 days (p < 0.001), 30-day reoperations (p < 0.001), and discharge to a destination other than the patient’s home (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The findings suggest the need for enhanced risk adjustment based on the indication of revision THA prior to setting prices in bundled payment models of total joint arthroplasty. This risk adjustment should be used to reduce the chance of financial disincentives in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:547–551

Aims. While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. Patients and Methods. Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. Results. Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. Conclusion. Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817–823

Aims. The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. Methods. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA. Results. At a minimum five-year follow-up, the use of dual mobility was cost-effective with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of between £3,006 and £18,745/QALY for patients aged < 55 years and between 64 and 75 years, respectively. For those aged > 75 years dual mobility was only cost-effective if the timeline was beyond seven years. The use of dual mobility bearings was cost-saving for patients aged < 75 years and cost-effective for those aged > 75 years if the time horizon was beyond ten years. Conclusion. The use of dual mobility bearings is cost-effective compared with single bearings in patients undergoing revision THA. The younger the patient is, the more likely it is that a dual mobility bearing can be more cost-effective and even cost-saving. The results are affected by the time horizon and cost of bearings for those aged > 75 years. For patients aged > 75 years, the surgeon must decide whether the use of a dual mobility bearing is a viable economic and clinical option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1128–1135

Aims. Dual mobility (DM) bearings are an attractive treatment option to obtain hip stability during challenging primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases. The purpose of this study was to analyze data submitted to the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to characterize utilization trends of DM bearings in the USA. Methods. All primary and revision THA procedures reported to AJRR from 2012 to 2018 were analyzed. Patients of all ages were included and subdivided into DM and traditional bearing surface cohorts. Patient demographics, geographical region, hospital size, and teaching affiliation were assessed. Associations were determined by chi-squared analysis and logistic regression was performed to assess outcome variables. Results. A total of 406,900 primary and 34,745 revision THAs were identified, of which 35,455 (8.7%) and 8,031 (23.1%) received DM implants respectively. For primary THA, DM usage increased from 6.7% in 2012 to 12.0% in 2018. Among revision THA, DM use increased from 19.5% in 2012 to 30.6% in 2018. Patients < 50 years of age had the highest rates of DM implantation in every year examined. For each year of increase in age, there was a 0.4% decrease in the rate of DM utilization (odds ratio (OR) 0.996 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.995 to 0.997); p < 0.001). Females were more likely to receive a DM implant compared to males (OR 1.077 (95% CI 1.054 to 1.100); p < 0.001). Major teaching institutions and smaller hospitals were associated with higher rates of utilization. DM articulations were used more commonly for dysplasia compared with osteoarthritis (OR 2.448 (95% CI 2.032 to 2.949); p < 0.001) during primary THA and for instability (OR 3.130 (95% CI 2.751 to 3.562) vs poly-wear; p < 0.001) in the revision setting. Conclusion. DM articulations showed a marked increase in utilization during the period examined. Younger patient age, female sex, and hospital characteristics such as teaching status, smaller size, and geographical location were associated with increased utilization. DM articulations were used more frequently for primary THA in patients with dysplasia and for revision THA in patients being treated for instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):27–32

Aims. Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years. Methods. Using the database of a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome. Results. The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner. Conclusion. When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66–72

Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct. Methods. We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97). Results. There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case. Conclusion. While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358

Aims. To investigate the extent of bone development around the scaffold of custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) over time. Methods. We performed a single-centre historical prospective cohort study, including all patients with revision THA using the aMace CTAC between January 2017 and March 2021. A total of 18 patients (18 CTACs) were included. Models of the hemipelvis and the scaffold component of the CTACs were created by segmentation of CT scans. The CT scans were performed immediately postoperatively and at least one year after surgery. The amount of bone in contact with the scaffold was analyzed at both times, and the difference was calculated. Results. The mean time between the implantation and the second CT scan was two years (1 to 5). The mean age of the patients during CTAC implantation was 75 years (60 to 92). The mean scaffold-bone contact area increased from 16% (SD 12.6) to 28% (SD 11.9). The mean scaffold-bone distance decreased from a mean of 6.5 mm (SD 2.0) to 5.5 mm (SD 1.6). None of the CTACs were revised or radiologically loose. Conclusion. There was a statistically significant increase of scaffold-bone contact area over time, but the total contact area of the scaffold in relation to the acetabular bone remained relatively low. As all implants remained well fixed, the question remains to what extend the scaffold contributes to the observed stability, in relation to the screws. A future design implication might be an elimination of the bulky scaffold component. This design modification would reduce production costs and may optimize the primary fit of the implant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):359–364

Aims. The aim of this systematic review was to report the rate of dislocation following the use of dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase (Scopus) was conducted for English articles between January 1974 and March 2016 using various combinations of the keywords “dual mobility”, “dual-mobility”, “tripolar”, “double-mobility”, “double mobility”, “hip”, “cup”, “socket”. The following data were extracted by two investigators independently: demographics, whether the operation was a primary or revision THA, length of follow-up, the design of the components, diameter of the femoral head, and type of fixation of the acetabular component. Results. In all, 59 articles met our inclusion criteria. These included a total of 17 908 THAs which were divided into two groups: studies dealing with DM components in primary THA and those dealing with these components in revision THA. The mean rate of dislocation was 0.9% in the primary THA group, and 3.0% in the revision THA group. The mean rate of intraprosthetic dislocation was 0.7% in primary and 1.3% in revision THAs. Conclusion. Based on the current data, the use of DM acetabular components are effective in minimising the risk of instability after both primary and revision THA. This benefit must be balanced against continuing concerns about the additional modularity, and the new mode of failure of intraprosthetic dislocation. Longer term studies are needed to assess the function of these newer materials compared with previous generations. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):18–24

Aims. One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed. Results. A total of eight repeat septic revisions (25%) developed a further infection-related failure, and the five-year infection-free survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57 to 92). Nine (28%) underwent a further all-cause revision and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 74% (95% CI 52 to 88). Neither the MSIS classification of the host status (p = 0.423) nor the limb status (p = 0.366) was significantly associated with further infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat one-stage exchange for PJI in THA is associated with a favourable five-year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival. Notably, the rate of infection control is encouraging when compared with the reported rates after repeat two-stage exchange. The results can be used to counsel patients and help clinicians make informed decisions about treatment. With the available number of patients, further infection-related failure was not associated with the MSIS host or limb status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):27–33

Aims. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to significantly reduce transfusion rates in primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs), but high-quality evidence is limited in the revision setting. The purpose of the current study was to compare the rate of blood transfusions and symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in a large cohort of revision THAs treated with or without intravenous (IV) TXA. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 3264 revision THAs (2645 patients) between 2005 and 2014, of which 1142 procedures received IV TXA (1 g at incision and 1 g at closure). The mean age in the revision group with TXA was 65 years (28 to 95), with 579 female patients (51%). The mean age in the revision group treated without TXA was 67 years (21 to 98), with 1160 female patients (55%). Outcomes analyzed included rates of transfusion and symptomatic VTEs between procedures undertaken with and without TXA. These comparisons were performed for the overall cohort, as well as within cases subcategorized for aseptic or septic aetiologies. A propensity score was developed to minimize bias between groups and utilized age at revision THA, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, preoperative anticoagulation, and year of surgery. Results. Tranexamic acid significantly and substantially reduced the rate of blood transfusions after revision THA overall from 54% to 26% (p < 0.001; adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.9), with a significant reduction in both aseptic (49% to 18%; p < 0.001) and septic (73% to 53%; p = 0.04) revisions. The rate of VTE was minimal overall, with three events (0.3%) in the TXA group and four events (0.2%) in the non-TXA group. There were no significant differences in VTE rates based on TXA use or aetiology of revision. Conclusion. Intravenous TXA significantly reduced transfusion rates during all-cause revision THAs, including a subgroup analysis of both aseptic and septic cohorts. Adjusted risk using propensity modelling showed no statistical difference in rates of VTEs between either group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;100-B(6 Supple B):104–109

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify modifiable risk factors associated with mortality in patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic hip fracture. Methods. The electronic records of consecutive patients undergoing revision THA for periprosthetic hip fracture between December 2011 and October 2018 were reviewed. The data which were collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the preoperative serum level of haemoglobin, time to surgery, operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and postoperative surgical and medical complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent modifiable factors associated with mortality at 90 days and one year postoperatively. Results. A total of 203 patients were identified. Their mean age was 78 years (44 to 100), and 108 (53%) were female. The median time to surgery was three days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 5). The mortality rate at one year was 13.8% (n = 28). The commonest surgical complication was dislocation (n = 22, 10.8%) and the commonest medical complication within 90 days of surgery was hospital-acquired pneumonia (n = 25, 12%). Multivariate analysis showed that the rate of mortality one year postoperatively was five-fold higher in patients who sustained a dislocation (odds ratio (OR) 5.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 15.83); p = 0.006). The rate of mortality was also four-fold higher in patients who developed hospital-acquired pneumonia within 90 days postoperatively (OR 4.43 (95% CI 1.55 to 12.67); p = 0.005). There was no evidence that the time to surgery was a risk factor for death at one year. Conclusion. Dislocation and hospital-acquired pneumonia following revision THA for a periprosthetic fracture are potentially modifiable risk factors for mortality. This study suggests that surgeons should consider increasing constraint to reduce the risk of dislocation, and the early involvement of a multidisciplinary team to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia. We found no evidence that the time to surgery affected mortality, which may allow time for medical optimization, surgical planning, and resource allocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):580–585

Aims. The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients and Methods. We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years. Results. A satisfactory control of infection and successful outcome was seen in 26 patients (57%). There therefore remained persistent symptoms that either required further surgery or chronic antibiotic suppression in 16 patients (38%). One-third of patients had died by the time of two years’ follow-up. Conclusion. The rate of failure and complication rate of repeat two-stage exchange THA for PJI is high and new methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer periods between stages, and new and more powerful forms of antimicrobial treatment should be investigated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):110–115

Aims. We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 112 PFFs, of which 47 (42%) B1 and 27 (24%) B2 PFFs were treated with internal fixation, whereas 38 (34%) B2 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty. Decision to perform internal fixation for B2 PFFs was based on specific radiological (polished femoral components, intact bone-cement interface) and clinical criteria (low-demand patient). Median follow-up was 36.4 months (24 to 60). Implant survival and mortality over time were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events (measured with a modified Dindo-Clavien classification) and 90-day readmissions were additionally compared between groups. Results. In all, nine (8.01%) surgical failures were detected. All failures occurred within the first 24 months following surgery. The 24-month implant survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.13 to 100) for B1 fractures treated with internal fixation, 90% (95% CI 76.86 to 100) for B2 PFFs treated with osteosynthesis-only, and 85.8% (95% CI 74.24 to 97.36) for B2 fractures treated with revision THA, without significant differences between groups (p = 0.296). Readmissions and major adverse events including mortality were overall high, but similar between groups (p > 0.05). The two-year patient survival rate was 87.1% (95% CI 77.49 to 95.76), 66.7% (95% CI 48.86 to 84.53), and 84.2% (95% CI 72.63 to 95.76), for the B1 group, B2 osteosynthesis group, and B2 revision group, respectively (p = 0.102). Conclusion. Implant survival in Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with internal fixation was similar to that of B1 fractures treated with the same method and to B2 PFFs treated with revision arthroplasty. Low-demand, elderly patients with B2 fractures around well-cemented polished femoral components with an intact bone-cement interface can be safely treated with internal fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1222–1230

Aims. The goals of this study were to define the risk factors, characteristics, and chronology of fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). . Patients and Methods. From our hospital’s prospectively collected database we identified all patients who had undergone a revision THA between 1969 and 2011 which involved the femoral stem. The patients’ medical records and radiographs were examined and the relevant data extracted. Post-operative periprosthetic fractures were classified using the Vancouver system. A total of 5417 revision THAs were identified. Results. There were 668 intra-operative fractures, giving an incidence of 12%. Fractures were three times more common with uncemented stems (19%) than with cemented stems (6%) (p <  0.001). The incidence of intra-operative femoral fracture varied by uncemented stem type: fully-coated (20%); proximally-coated (19%); modular fluted tapered (16%) (p < 0.05). Most fractures occurred during the insertion of the femoral component (35%). One-third involved the diaphysis and 26% were of the calcar: 69% were undisplaced. There were 281 post-operative fractures of the femur (20-year probability = 11%). There was no difference in risk for cemented and uncemented stems. Post-operative fractures were more common in men < 70 years (p = 0.02). Periprosthetic fractures occurred earlier after uncemented revision of the femoral component, but later after a cemented revision. The most common fracture type was a Vancouver B. 1. (31%). Of all post-operative fractures, 24% underwent open reduction and internal fixation and 15% revision arthroplasty. Conclusion. In revision THA, intra-operative fractures occurred three times more often with an uncemented stem. Many were undisplaced diaphyseal fractures treated with cerclage fixation. . While the risk of post-operative fracture is similar between uncemented and cemented components, they occur at notably different times depending on the type of stem fixation. . Take home message: In revision THA, intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures occur three times more often with uncemented stems. Many are non-displaced diaphyseal fractures treated with cerclage fixation. While postoperative fracture risks are equivalent between uncemented and cemented components, they occur at notably different time periods based on stem fixation type. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:468–74

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of perioperative complications following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients aged ≥ 80 years with that in those aged < 80 years, and to identify risk factors for the incidence of serious adverse events in those aged ≥ 80 years using a large validated national database. Patients and Methods. Patients who underwent aseptic revision THA were identified in the 2005 to 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database and stratified into two age groups: those aged < 80 years and those aged ≥ 80 years. Preoperative and procedural characteristics were compared. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare the risk of postoperative complications and readmission. Risk factors for the development of a serious adverse event in those aged ≥ 80 years were characterized. Results. The study included 7569 patients aged < 80 years and 1419 were aged ≥ 80 years. Multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of perioperative mortality, pneumonia, urinary tract infection and the requirement for a blood transfusion and an extended length of stay in those aged ≥ 80 years compared with those aged < 80 years. Independent risk factors for the development of a serious adverse event in those aged ≥ 80 years include an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of ≥ 3 and procedures performed under general anaesthesia. Conclusion. Even after controlling for patient and procedural characteristics, aseptic revision THA is associated with greater risks in patients aged ≥ 80 years compared with younger patients. This is important for counselling and highlights the need for medical optimization in these vulnerable patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:143–51