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: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15.

Aims. The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At present there is no established standard of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres. Patients and Methods. We conducted a feasibility study comparing the clinical effectiveness of a dual mobility acetabular component compared with standard polyethylene component in total hip arthroplasty for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, for a 12-month period beginning in June 2013. The primary outcome was the risk of dislocation one year post-operatively. Secondary outcome measures were EuroQol 5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, Oxford hip score, mortality and re-operation. Results. Only 20 patients were recruited during this time. The baseline demographics were similar in the two groups and no patient suffered a dislocation. Differences in secondary outcomes were not analysed due to the small sample. Conclusion. This feasibility study suggests that any trial investigating the effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty for fracture of the hip might not be deliverable within the constraints of current systems of care in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1431–5

This study evaluated the feasibility of using published data from more than one register to define the performance of different hip implants. In order to obtain estimates of performance for specific types of hip system from different register, we analysed data from the annual reports of five national and one Italian regional register. We extracted the number of implants and rates of implant survival at different periods of follow-up. Our aim was to assess whether estimates of cumulative survival rate were comparable with data from registers from different countries, and our conclusion was that such a comparison could only be performed incompletely.

This article considers some of the problems of the interpretation of information from other national arthroplasty registers when setting up a new register. In order for the most useful information to be available from registers much international co-operation is required between all those responsible for the design of registers as well as those who gather, assess and publish the data.