Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):221–226

The advent of modular porous metal augments has ushered in a new form of treatment for acetabular bone loss. The function of an augment can be seen as reducing the size of a defect or reconstituting the anterosuperior/posteroinferior columns and/or allowing supplementary fixation. Depending on the function of the augment, the surgeon can decide on the sequence of introduction of the hemispherical shell, before or after the augment. Augments should always, however, be used with cement to form a unit with the acetabular component. Given their versatility, augments also allow the use of a hemispherical shell in a position that restores the centre of rotation and biomechanics of the hip. Progressive shedding or the appearance of metal debris is a particular finding with augments and, with other radiological signs of failure, should be recognized on serial radiographs. Mid- to long-term outcomes in studies reporting the use of augments with hemispherical shells in revision total hip arthroplasty have shown rates of survival of > 90%. However, a higher risk of failure has been reported when augments have been used for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):312–318.

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface. It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation

The posterior malleolus of the ankle is the object of increasing attention, with considerable enthusiasm for CT scanning and surgical fixation, as expressed in a recent annotation in The Bone & Joint Journal. Undoubtedly, fractures with a large posterior malleolar fragment that allow posterior talar subluxation from the mortise are served better by fixation. However, in all other situations, the existing literature does not support this widespread change in practice. The available biomechanical evidence shows that the posterior malleolus has little part to play in the stability or contact stresses of the ankle joint. Radiographic studies have not shown that CT scanning offers helpful information on pathoanatomical classification, case selection, or prognosis, or that scanning improves the likelihood of an adequate surgical reduction. Clinical studies have not shown any improvement in patient outcome after surgical fixation, and have confirmed that the inevitable consequence of increased intervention is an increased rate of complications. A careful and thoughtful evaluation of indications, risks, and benefits of this fashionable concept is required to ensure that we are deploying valuable resources with efficacy, and that we do no harm.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:566–9.

Aims

To demonstrate, with concrete examples, the value of in-depth exploration and comparison of data published in National Joint Arthroplasty registry reports.

An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over 400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to the current literature.

In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years.

After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen.

The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.

National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores.

Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.

Failure of fixation is a common problem in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures around the hip. The reinforcement of bone stock or of fixation of the implant may be a solution. Our study assesses the existing evidence for the use of bone substitutes in the management of these fractures in osteoporotic patients. Relevant publications were retrieved through Medline research and further scrutinised. Of 411 studies identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 12 experimental and ten clinical reports. The clinical studies were evaluated with regard to their level of evidence. Only four were prospective and randomised.

Polymethylmethacrylate and calcium-phosphate cements increased the primary stability of the implant-bone construct in all experimental and clinical studies, although there was considerable variation in the design of the studies. In randomised, controlled studies, augmentation of intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur with calcium-phosphate cement was associated with poor long-term results. There was a lack of data on the long-term outcome for trochanteric fractures. Because there were only a few, randomised, controlled studies, there is currently poor evidence for the use of bone cement in the treatment of fractures of the hip.

This article considers some of the problems of the interpretation of information from other national arthroplasty registers when setting up a new register. In order for the most useful information to be available from registers much international co-operation is required between all those responsible for the design of registers as well as those who gather, assess and publish the data.

There are three basic concepts that are important to the biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. First, the outer diameter of the screw determines pullout strength, while the inner diameter determines fatigue strength. Secondly, when inserting a pedicle screw, the dorsal cortex of the spine should not be violated and the screws on each side should converge and be of good length. Thirdly, fixation can be augmented in cases of severe osteoporosis or revision.

A trajectory parallel or caudal to the superior endplate can minimise breakage of the screw from repeated axial loading. Straight insertion of the pedicle screw in the mid-sagittal plane provides the strongest stability.

Rotational stability can be improved by adding transverse connectors. The indications for their use include anterior column instability, and the correction of rotational deformity.

More than a million hip replacements are carried out each year worldwide, and the number of other artificial joints inserted is also rising, so that infections associated with arthroplasties have become more common. However, there is a paucity of literature on infections due to haematogenous seeding following dental procedures. We reviewed the published literature to establish the current knowledge on this problem and to determine the evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to a dental procedure.

We found that antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental interventions in patients with artificial joints lacks evidence-based information and thus cannot be universally recommended.

In an adult man the mean femoral anteversion angle measures approximately 15°, for which the reasons have never been fully elucidated.

An assortment of simian and quadruped mammalian femora was therefore examined and the anteversion angles measured. A simple static mathematical model was then produced to explain the forces acting on the neck of the femur in the quadruped and in man. Femoral anteversion was present in all the simian and quadruped femora and ranged between 4° and 41°. It thus appears that man has retained this feature despite evolving from quadrupedal locomotion.

Quadrupeds generally mobilise with their hips flexed forwards from the vertical; in this position, it is clear that anteversion gives biomechanical advantage against predominantly vertical forces. In man with mobilisation on vertical femora, the biomechanical advantage of anteversion is against forces acting mainly in the horizontal plane. This has implications in regard to the orientation of hip replacements.