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:
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:
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.
