Aims

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

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

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.

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.