Aims

Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA.

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty has been used as a surgical treatment of coxarthrosis since 1997. We present 20-year results of 234 consecutive BHRs performed in our unit.

Aims

To establish the survivorship, function, and metal ion levels in an unselected series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRAs) performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Aims

Hip arthroplasty does not always restore normal anatomy. This is due to inaccurate surgery or lack of stem sizes. We evaluated the aptitude of four total hip arthroplasty systems to restore an anatomical and medialized hip rotation centre.

Aims. Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year’s follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze. Results. Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA. Conclusion. In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued long-term follow up is required to assess ultimate survivorship of SRA

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction.

Given the increasing number of total hip arthroplasty procedures being performed annually, it is imperative that orthopaedic surgeons understand factors responsible for instability. In order to treat this potentially complex problem, we recommend correctly classifying the type of instability present based on component position, abductor function, impingement, and polyethylene wear. Correct classification allows the treating surgeon to choose the appropriate revision option that ultimately will allow for the best potential outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):44–9.

The primary purpose of this study of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was to compare the effect of using a cementless or cemented femoral component on the subsequent bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck.

This was a single-centre, prospective, double-blinded control trial which randomised 120 patients (105 men and 15 women) with a mean age of 49.4 years (21 to 68) to receive either a cemented or cementless femoral component. Follow-up was to two years. Outcome measures included total and six-point region-of-interest BMD of the femoral neck, radiological measurements of acetabular inclination, neck-shaft and stem-shaft angles, and functional outcome scores including the Harris hip score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the University of California at Los Angeles activity scale.

In total, 17 patients were lost to follow-up leaving 103 patients at two years. There were no revisions in the cementless group and three revisions (5%) in the cemented group (two because of hip pain and one for pseudotumour).

The total BMD was significantly higher in the cementless group at six months (p < 0.001) and one year (p = 0.01) than in the cemented group, although there was a loss of statistical significance in the difference at two years (p = 0.155).

All patient outcomes improved significantly: there were no significant differences between the two groups.

The results show better preservation of femoral neck BMD with a cementless femoral component after two years of follow-up. Further investigation is needed to establish whether this translates into improved survivorship.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1608–14.

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82).

We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision.

A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99).

The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44.

Restoration of leg length and offset is an important goal in total hip replacement. This paper reports a calliper-based technique to help achieve these goals by restoring the location of the centre of the femoral head. This was validated first by using a co-ordinate measuring machine to see how closely the calliper technique could record and restore the centre of the femoral head when simulating hip replacement on Sawbone femur, and secondly by using CT in patients undergoing hip replacement.

Results from the co-ordinate measuring machine showed that the centre of the femoral head was predicted by the calliper to within 4.3 mm for offset (mean 1.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 2.8)) and 2.4 mm for vertical height (mean -0.6 (95% CI -1.4 to 0.2)). The CT scans showed that offset and vertical height were restored to within 8 mm (mean -1 (95% CI -2.1 to 0.6)) and -14 mm (mean 4 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.3)), respectively.

Accurate assessment and restoration of the centre of the femoral head is feasible with a calliper. It is quick, inexpensive, simple to use and can be applied to any design of femoral component.