Objectives. We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. Methods. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression. Results. We demonstrated a prevalence of revision THA due to prosthetic joint infection of 0.4/100 procedures following primary and 1.6/100 procedures following revision hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the three months following primary hip arthroplasty has risen 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1) between 2005 and 2013, and 3.0-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5) following revision hip arthroplasty. Over 1000 procedures are performed annually as a consequence of hip PJI, an increase of 2.6-fold between 2005 and 2013. Conclusions. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip arthroplasty is low, it is rising and, coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, this represents a growing and substantial treatment burden. Cite this article: E. Lenguerrand, M. R. Whitehouse, A. D. Beswick, S. A. Jones, M. L. Porter, A. W. Blom. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:391–398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2017-0003.R1

Aims. To investigate the effect of polyethylene manufacturing characteristics and irradiation dose on the survival of cemented and reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Methods. In this registry study, data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) were linked with manufacturing data supplied by manufacturers. The primary endpoint was revision of any component. Cox proportional hazard regression was a primary analytic approach adjusting for competing risk of death, patient characteristics, head composition, and stem fixation. Results. A total of 290,770 primary THAs were successfully linked with manufacturing characteristics. Overall 4,708 revisions were analyzed, 1,260 of which were due to aseptic loosening. Total radiation dose was identified as a risk factor and included in the Cox model. For statistical modelling of aseptic loosening, THAs were grouped into three categories: G1 (no radiation); G2 ( > 0 to < 5 Mrad); and G3 ( ≥ 5 Mrad). G1 had the worst survivorship. The Cox regression hazard ratio for revision due to aseptic loosening for G2 was 0.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.83), and for G3 0.4 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.53). Male sex and uncemented stem fixation were associated with higher risk of revision and ceramic heads with lower risk. Conclusion. Polyethylene irradiation was associated with reduced risk of revision for aseptic loosening. Radiation doses of ≥ 5 Mrad were associated with a further reduction in risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(9):563–571

Aims. To explore the effect of different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in two-stage revision for chronic hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 36 chronic PJI patients treated with different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers between January 2014 and December 2017. The incidence of complications and the therapeutic effects of different types of antibiotic-loaded articulating cement spacers were compared. Results. A total of 36 patients with chronic hip PJI were included. Of these, 13 patients were treated with spacers with Kirschner wires as an endoskeleton (group I), ten patients were treated with spacers with a cemented femoral prosthesis as an endoskeleton (group II), and 13 patients were treated with cemented femoral prostheses combined with polyethylene sockets as a spacer (group III). All patients were followed for 12 to 60 months, with a mean follow-up period of 26.44 months (SEM 14.09). Infection was controlled in 34 patients (94.44%), and there were no significant differences in the eradication rate among the three groups (p = 0.705), but the risk of complications related to the spacer in group III was significantly lower than that in groups I and II (p = 0.006). Conclusion. Articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is effective in the treatment of chronic hip PJI, but we must pay attention to the occurrence of spacer fracture and dislocation, which can lead to poor joint function. The risk of spacer-related mechanical complications is low, and better joint function can be achieved when using cemented femoral prostheses combined with polyethylene sockets as spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(8):484–492

Outcomes following different types of surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are well reported individually but comparative data are deficient. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to analyze the outcomes following surgical management of FAI by hip arthroscopy (HA), anterior mini open approach (AMO), and surgical hip dislocation (SHD). This SR was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic database search of PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE for English and German language articles over the last 20 years was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We specifically analyzed and compared changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), α-angle, rate of complications, rate of revision, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 48 articles were included for final analysis with a total of 4,384 hips in 4,094 patients. All subgroups showed a significant correction in mean α angle postoperatively with a mean change of 28.8° (95% confidence interval (CI) 21 to 36.5; p < 0.01) after AMO, 21.1° (95% CI 15.1 to 27; p < 0.01) after SHD, and 20.5° (95% CI 16.1 to 24.8; p < 0.01) after HA. The AMO group showed a significantly higher increase in PROMs (3.7; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.2; p < 0.01) versus arthroscopy (2.5; 95% CI 2.3 to 2.8; p < 0.01) and SHD (2.4; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.3; p < 0.01). However, the rate of complications following AMO was significantly higher than HA and SHD. All three surgical approaches offered significant improvements in PROMs and radiological correction of cam deformities. All three groups showed similar rates of revision procedures but SHD had the highest rate of conversion to a THA. Revision rates were similar for all three revision procedures

Aims. Osteoporosis is common in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients. It plays a substantial factor in the surgery’s outcome, and previous studies have revealed that pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis influences implant survival rate. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of and treatment rates for osteoporosis prior to THA, and to explore differences in osteoporosis-related biomarkers between patients treated and untreated for osteoporosis. Methods. This single-centre retrospective study included 398 hip joints of patients who underwent THA. Using medical records, we examined preoperative bone mineral density measures of the hip and lumbar spine using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans and the medications used to treat osteoporosis at the time of admission. We also assessed the following osteoporosis-related biomarkers: tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b); total procollagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide (total P1NP); intact parathyroid hormone; and homocysteine. Results. The prevalence of DXA-proven hip osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5) among THA patients was 8.8% (35 of 398). The spinal osteoporosis prevalence rate was 4.5% (18 of 398), and 244 patients (61.3%; 244 of 398) had osteopenia (-2.5 < T-score ≤ -1) or osteoporosis of either the hip or spine. The rate of pharmacological osteoporosis treatment was 22.1% (88 of 398). TRACP-5b was significantly lower in the osteoporosis-treated group than in the untreated group (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Osteoporosis is common in patients undergoing THA, but the diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis were insufficient. The lower TRACP-5b levels in the osteoporosis-treated group — that is, osteoclast suppression — may contribute to the reduction of the postoperative revision rate after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(12):873–880

Aims. The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Methods. We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method. Results. The two groups were matched for patient sex, age (61 and 63 years), time to revision (30 and 41 months), implant size (54 mm and 52 mm), and porosity (72% and 60%) (p > 0.152). There was no difference in visual bony attachment (p = 0.209). Histological analysis showed greater bone ingrowth in 3D-printed implants (p < 0.001), with mean bone attachment of 63% (SD 28%) and 37% (SD 20%), respectively. This was observed for all the outcome measures. Conclusion. This was the first study to investigate osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. Greater bone ingrowth was found in 3D-printed implants, suggesting that better osseointegration can be achieved. However, the influence of specific surgeon, implant, and patient factors needs to be considered. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):388–400

Aims

This study was designed to develop a model for predicting bone mineral density (BMD) loss of the femur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using artificial intelligence (AI), and to identify factors that influence the prediction. Additionally, we virtually examined the efficacy of administration of bisphosphonate for cases with severe BMD loss based on the predictive model.

Aims

Manual impaction, with a mallet and introducer, remains the standard method of installing cementless acetabular cups during total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to quantify the accuracy and precision of manual impaction strikes during the seating of an acetabular component. This understanding aims to help improve impaction surgical techniques and inform the development of future technologies.

Aims

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients report exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion. However, the exact impingement location in deep flexion is unknown. The aim was to investigate impingement-free maximal flexion, impingement location, and if cam deformity causes hip impingement in flexion in FAI patients.

Objectives. Modern metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), while achieving good results with well-orientated, well-designed components in ideal patients, is contraindicated in women, men with head size under 50 mm, or metal hypersensitivity. These patients currently have no access to the benefits of HRA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) has demonstrated clinical success in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, when used in HRA, potentially reduces metal ion-related sequelae. We report the early performance of HRA using a direct-to-bone cementless mono-bloc XLPE component coupled with a cobalt-chrome femoral head, in the patient group for whom HRA is currently contraindicated. Methods. This is a cross-sectional, observational assessment of 88 consecutive metal-on-XLPE HRAs performed in 84 patients between 2015 and 2018 in three centres (three surgeons, including the designer surgeon). Mean follow-up is 1.6 years (0.7 to 3.9). Mean age at operation was 56 years (. sd. 11; 21 to 82), and 73% of implantations were in female patients. All patients were individually counselled, and a detailed informed consent was obtained prior to operation. Primary resurfacing was carried out in 85 hips, and three cases involved revision of previous MoM HRA. Clinical, radiological, and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) assessments were studied, along with implant survival. Results. There was no loss to follow-up and no actual or impending revision or reoperation. Median OHS increased from 24 (interquartile range (IQR) 20 to 28) preoperatively to 48 (IQR 46 to 48) at the latest follow-up (48 being the best possible score). Radiographs showed one patient had a head-neck junction lucency. No other radiolucency, osteolysis, component migration, or femoral neck thinning was noted. Conclusion. The results in this small consecutive cohort suggest that metal-on-monobloc-XLPE HRA is successful in the short term and merits further investigation as a conservative alternative to the current accepted standard of stemmed THA. However, we would stress that survival data with longer-term follow-up are needed prior to widespread adoption. Cite this article: R. B. C. Treacy, J. P. Holland, J. Daniel, H. Ziaee, D. J. W. McMinn. Preliminary report of clinical experience with metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene hip resurfacing. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:443–450. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0060.R1

Aims

This study investigates the use of the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score in a young hip arthroplasty population, and its ability to capture additional benefit beyond the ceiling effect of conventional patient-reported outcome measures.

Aims

Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems.

Objectives. Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047). Conclusions. Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors. Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405–413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2

Objectives. Previous studies have suggested that metal-on-metal (MoM) Pinnacle (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, Indiana) hip arthroplasties implanted after 2006 exhibit higher failure rates. This was attributed to the production of implants with reduced diametrical clearances between their bearing surfaces, which, it was speculated, were outside manufacturing tolerances. This study aimed to better understand the performance of Pinnacle Systems manufactured before and after this event. Methods. A total of 92 retrieved MoM Pinnacle hips were analyzed, of which 45 were implanted before 2007, and 47 from 2007 onwards. The ‘pre-2007’ group contained 45 implants retrieved from 21 male and 24 female patients, with a median age of 61.3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 57.1 to 65.5); the ‘2007 onwards’ group contained 47 implants retrieved from 19 male and 28 female patients, with a median age of 61.8 years (IQR 58.5 to 67.8). The volume of material lost from their bearing and taper surfaces was measured using coordinate and roundness measuring machines. These outcomes were then compared statistically using linear regression models, adjusting for potentially confounding factors. Results. There was no significant difference between the taper and bearing wear rates of the ‘pre-2007’ and ‘2007 onwards’ groups (p = 0.67 and p = 0.39, respectively). Pinnacles implanted from 2007 onwards were revised after a mean time of 50 months, which was significantly earlier than the ‘pre-2007’ hips (96 months) (p < 0.001). A reduction in the time to revision was present year on year from 2003 to 2011. Conclusion. We found no difference in the wear rate of these implants based on the year of implantation. The ‘pre-2007’ hips had a two-fold greater time to revision than those implanted after 2007; this may be due to the increased surveillance of MoM hips following UK regulatory advice and several high-profile failures. Interestingly, we observed a decreasing trend in the mean time to revision every year from 2003 onwards. Cite this article: S. Bergiers, H. S. Hothi, J. Henckel, A. Eskelinen, J. Skinner, A. Hart. Wear performance of retrieved metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip arthroplasties implanted before and after 2007. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:595–600. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.711.BJR-2018-0143.R1

Aims

In computer simulations, the shape of the range of motion (ROM) of a stem with a cylindrical neck design will be a perfect cone. However, many modern stems have rectangular/oval-shaped necks. We hypothesized that the rectangular/oval stem neck will affect the shape of the ROM and the prosthetic impingement.

Objectives. Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. Methods. A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens. Results. The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies. Conclusion. Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration. Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1

Objectives. The high revision rates of the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and the DePuy ASR XL (the total hip arthroplasty (THA) version) have led to questions over the viability of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip joints. Some designs of MoM hip joint do, however, have reasonable mid-term performance when implanted in appropriate patients. Investigations into the reasons for implant failure are important to offer help with the choice of implants and direction for future implant designs. One way to assess the performance of explanted hip prostheses is to measure the wear (in terms of material loss) on the joint surfaces. Methods. In this study, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the wear on five failed cementless Biomet Magnum/ReCap/ Taperloc large head MoM THAs, along with one Biomet ReCap resurfacing joint. Surface roughness measurements were also taken. The reason for revision of these implants was pain and/or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and/or elevated blood metal ion levels. Results. The mean wear rate of the articulating surfaces of the heads and acetabular components of all six joints tested was found to be 6.1 mm. 3. /year (4.1 to 7.6). The mean wear rate of the femoral head tapers of the five THAs was 0.054 mm. 3. /year (0.021 to 0.128) with a mean maximum wear depth of 5.7 µm (4.3 to 8.5). Conclusion. Although the taper wear was relatively low, the wear from the articulating surfaces was sufficient to provide concern and was potentially large enough to have been the cause of failure of these joints. The authors believe that patients implanted with the ReCap system, whether the resurfacing prosthesis or the THA, should be closely monitored. Cite this article: S. C. Scholes, B. J. Hunt, V. M. Richardson, D. J. Langton, E. Smith, T. J. Joyce. Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:113–122. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.62.BJR-2016-0130.R2

Objectives. In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. Methods. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN). Results. Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone. Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282–288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1

Objectives. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods. We searched two literature databases, using terms that encompass all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, as well as PJI and statistical terms reflecting diagnostic parameters. The findings are summarized as a narrative review. Results. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were the two most commonly published serum biomarkers. Most evidence did not identify other serum biomarkers that are clearly superior to ESR and CRP. Other serum biomarkers have not demonstrated superior sensitivity and have failed to replace CRP and ESR as first-line screening tests. D-dimer appears to be a promising biomarker, but more research is necessary. Factors that influence serum biomarkers include temporal trends, stage of revision, and implant-related factors (metallosis). Conclusion. Our review helped to identify factors that can influence serum biomarkers’ level changes; the recognition of such factors can help improve their diagnostic utility. As such, we cannot rely on ESR and CRP alone for the diagnosis of PJI prior to second-stage reimplantation, or in metal-on-metal or corrosion cases. The future of serum biomarkers will likely shift towards using genomics and proteomics to identify proteins transcribed via messenger RNA in response to infection and sepsis. Cite this article: A. Saleh, J. George, M. Faour, A. K. Klika, C. A. Higuera. Serum biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infections. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:85–93. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0323

Aims

Cementless acetabular components rely on press-fit fixation for initial stability. In certain cases, initial stability is more difficult to obtain (such as during revision). No current study evaluates how a surgeon’s impaction technique (mallet mass, mallet velocity, and number of strikes) may affect component fixation. This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1) how does impaction technique affect a) bone strain generation and deterioration (and hence implant stability) and b) seating in different density bones?; and 2) can an impaction technique be recommended to minimize risk of implant loosening while ensuring seating of the acetabular component?