Aims. The prevalence of ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in concert with life expectancy, putting more patients at risk for interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs). Our study aimed to assess treatment methodologies, implant survivorship, and IPFF clinical outcomes. Methods. A total of 76 patients treated for an IPFF from February 1985 to April 2018 were reviewed. Prior to fracture, at the hip/knee sites respectively, 46 femora had primary/primary, 21 had revision/primary, three had primary/revision, and six had revision/revision components. Mean age and BMI were 74 years (33 to 99) and 30 kg/m. 2. (21 to 46), respectively. Mean follow-up after fracture treatment was seven years (2 to 24). Results. Overall, 59 fractures were classified as Vancouver C (Unified Classification System (UCS) D), 17 were Vancouver B (UCS B). In total, 57 patients (75%) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); three developed nonunion, three developed periprosthetic joint infection, and two developed aseptic loosening. In all, 18 patients (24%) underwent revision arthroplasty including 13 revision THAs, four distal femoral arthroplasties (DFAs), and one revision TKA: of these, one patient developed aseptic loosening and two developed nonunion. Survivorship free from any reoperation was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.9% to 90.6%) and 77% (95% CI 49.4% to 90.7%) in the ORIF and revision groups at two years, respectively. ORIF patients who went on to union tended to have stemmed knee components and greater mean interprosthetic distance (IPD = 189 mm (SD 73.6) vs 163 mm (SD 36.7); p = 0.546) than nonunited fractures. Patients who went on to nonunion in the revision arthroplasty group had higher medullary diameter: cortical width ratio (2.5 (SD 1.7) vs 1.3 (SD 0.3); p = 0.008) and lower IPD (36 mm (SD 30.6) vs 214 mm (SD 32.1); p < 0.001). At latest follow-up, 95% of patients (n = 72) were ambulatory. Conclusion. Interprosthetic femur fractures are technically and biologically challenging cases. Individualized approaches to internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty led to an 81% (95% CI 68.3% to 88.6%) survivorship free from reoperation at two years with 95% of patients ambulatory. Continued improvements in management are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):122–128

Aims. To achieve the functional benefits of the direct anterior (DA) approach and the fixation benefits of cemented replacement, this study combined the two techniques posing the following questions: does the limited access of the DA approach adversely affect the cement technique?; and does such a cementing technique reduce the incidence of cementless complications?. Methods. A consecutive series of 341 patients (360 hips) receiving the DA approach between 2016 and 2018 were reviewed. There were 203 cementless stems and 157 cemented stems. Mean age was 75 years (70 to 86) in the cementless group and 76 years (52 to 94) in the cemented group, with 239 (70%) females in the whole series. Femoral complications were compared between the two groups. Mean follow-up was 1.5 years (0.1 to 4.4) for patients in the cementless group and 1.3 years (0.0 to 3.9) for patients in the cemented group. Results. The cementless group had a higher rate of femoral complications (8 vs 0; p = 0.011). There were two loose stems and six fractures, all requiring revision. Fractures occurred a mean 14.5 days (2 to 31) postoperatively and loosening at 189 days and 422 days postoperatively. Femoral cementing can be done using the DA approach safely and reduces the number of complications compared with a contemporary cementless series. Conclusion. A higher rate of early fractures and loosening occurred with cementless stems. This was not observed in our cemented stem cohort and cementing was safely accomplished through the DA approach. The modern femoral cementing process with the DA approach does not add to surgical complexity or time, has fewer early complications, and is a safer option for older patients compared to cementless femoral arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):33–37

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution.

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.

Aims

We aimed to report the mid- to long-term rates of septic and aseptic failure after two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Femoral revision component subsidence has been identified as predicting early failure in revision hip surgery. This comparative cohort study assessed the potential risk factors of subsidence in two commonly used femoral implant designs.