Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 8 of 8
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1199 - 1208
1 Oct 2019
Lamb JN Matharu GS Redmond A Judge A West RM Pandit HG

Aims

We compared implant and patient survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFFs) during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with matched controls.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared 4831 hips with IOPFF and 48 154 propensity score matched primary THAs without IOPFF implanted between 2004 and 2016, which had been recorded on a national joint registry. Implant and patient survival rates were compared between groups using Cox regression.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 7 | Pages 779 - 786
1 Jul 2019
Lamb JN Baetz J Messer-Hannemann P Adekanmbi I van Duren BH Redmond A West RM Morlock MM Pandit HG

Aims

The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day risk of revision for periprosthetic femoral fracture associated with design features of cementless femoral stems, and to investigate the effect of a collar on this risk using a biomechanical in vitro model.

Materials and Methods

A total of 337 647 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry (NJR) were included in a multivariable survival and regression analysis to identify the adjusted hazard of revision for periprosthetic fracture following primary THA using a cementless stem. The effect of a collar in cementless THA on this risk was evaluated in an in vitro model using paired fresh frozen cadaveric femora.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1010 - 1017
1 Aug 2018
Jain S Magra M Dube B Veysi VT Whitwell GS Aderinto JB Emerton ME Stone MH Pandit HG

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate implant survival of reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) at medium-term follow-up.

Patients and Methods

A consecutive series of 1082 THAs in 982 patients with mean follow-up of 7.9 years (5 to 11.3) is presented. Mean age was 69.2 years (21 to 94). Of these, 194 (17.9%) were in patients under 60 years, 663 (61.3%) in female patients and 348 (32.2%) performed by a trainee. Head size was 28 mm in 953 hips (88.1%) or 32 mm in 129 hips (11.9%). Survival analysis was performed and subgroups compared using log rank tests.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 1 | Pages 33 - 41
1 Jan 2018
Matharu GS Hunt LP Murray DW Howard P Pandit HG Blom AW Bolland B Judge A

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether the rates of revision for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Pinnacle components varied according to the year of the initial operation, and compare these with the rates of revision for other designs of MoM THA.

Patients and Methods

Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales included 36 mm MoM THAs with Pinnacle acetabular components which were undertaken between 2003 and 2012 with follow-up for at least five years (n = 10 776) and a control group of other MoM THAs (n = 13 817). The effect of the year of the primary operation on all-cause rates of revision was assessed using Cox regression and interrupted time-series analysis.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1020 - 1027
1 Aug 2017
Matharu GS Judge A Pandit HG Murray DW

Aims

To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision.

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1 | Pages 40 - 48
1 Jan 2016
Matharu GS Mansour R Dada O Ostlere S Pandit HG Murray DW

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery.

Methods

This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study involved 39 patients (40 MoMHRs). The time between imaging modalities was a mean of 14.6 days (0 to 90), with imaging performed at a mean of 5.3 months (0.06 to 12) before revision. The prevalence of intra-operative pseudotumours was 82.5% (n = 33).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1290 - 1297
1 Oct 2014
Grammatopoulos G Pandit HG da Assunção R McLardy-Smith P De Smet KA Gill HS Murray DW

There is great variability in acetabular component orientation following hip replacement. The aims of this study were to compare the component orientation at impaction with the orientation measured on post-operative radiographs and identify factors that influence the difference between the two. A total of 67 hip replacements (52 total hip replacements and 15 hip resurfacings) were prospectively studied. Intra-operatively, the orientation of the acetabular component after impaction relative to the operating table was measured using a validated stereo-photogrammetry protocol. Post-operatively, the radiographic orientation was measured; the mean inclination/anteversion was 43° (sd 6°)/ 19° (sd 7°). A simulated radiographic orientation was calculated based on how the orientation would have appeared had an on-table radiograph been taken intra-operatively. The mean difference between radiographic and intra-operative inclination/anteversion was 5° (sd 5°)/ -8° (sd 8°). The mean difference between simulated radiographic and intra-operative inclination/anteversion, which quantifies the effect of the different way acetabular orientation is measured, was 3°/-6° (sd 2°). The mean difference between radiographic and simulated radiographic orientation inclination/anteversion, which is a manifestation of the change in pelvic position between component impaction and radiograph, was 1°/-2° (sd 7°).

This study demonstrated that in order to achieve a specific radiographic orientation target, surgeons should implant the acetabular component 5° less inclined and 8° more anteverted than their target. Great variability (2 sd about ± 15°) in the post-operative radiographic cup orientation was seen. The two equally contributing causes for this are variability in the orientation at which the cup is implanted, and the change in pelvic position between impaction and post-operative radiograph.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1290–7


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 7 | Pages 876 - 883
1 Jul 2014
Grammatopoulos G Pandit HG da Assunção R Taylor A McLardy-Smith P De Smet KA Murray DW Gill HS

The orientation of the acetabular component is influenced not only by the orientation at which the surgeon implants the component, but also the orientation of the pelvis at the time of implantation. Hence, the orientation of the pelvis at set-up and its movement during the operation, are important. During 67 hip replacements, using a validated photogrammetric technique, we measured how three surgeons orientated the patient’s pelvis, how much the pelvis moved during surgery, and what effect these had on the final orientation of the acetabular component. Pelvic orientation at set-up, varied widely (mean (± 2, standard deviation (sd))): tilt 8° (2sd ±32), obliquity –4° (2sd ±12), rotation –8° (2sd ±14). Significant differences in pelvic positioning were detected between surgeons (p < 0.001). The mean angular movement of the pelvis between set-up and component implantation was 9° (sd 6). Factors influencing pelvic movement included surgeon, approach (posterior >  lateral), procedure (hip resurfacing > total hip replacement) and type of support (p < 0.001). Although, on average, surgeons achieved their desired acetabular component orientation, there was considerable variability (2sd ±16) in component orientation. We conclude that inconsistency in positioning the patient at set-up and movement of the pelvis during the operation account for much of the variation in acetabular component orientation. Improved methods of positioning and holding the pelvis are required.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:876–83.