Large ceramic femoral heads offer several advantages
that are potentially advantageous to patients undergoing both primary
and revision total hip replacement. Many high-quality studies have
demonstrated the benefit of large femoral heads in reducing post-operative instability.
Ceramic femoral heads may also offer an advantage in reducing polyethylene wear
that has been reported Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:63–6.
Total hip replacement (THR) is a very common
procedure undertaken in up to 285 000 Americans each year. Patient
satisfaction with THR is very high, with improvements in general
health, quality of life, and function while at the same time very
cost effective. Although the majority of patients have a high degree
of satisfaction with their THR, 27% experience some discomfort,
and up to 6% experience severe chronic pain. Although it can be
difficult to diagnose the cause of the pain in these patients, this
clinical issue should be approached systematically and thoroughly.
A detailed history and clinical examination can often provide the
correct diagnosis and guide the appropriate selection of investigations, which
will then serve to confirm the clinical diagnosis made. Cite this article:
Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.
The December 2013 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: Enhanced recovery works; Acetabular placement; Exercise better than rest in osteoarthritis patients; if Birmingham hip resurfacing is immune from pseudotumour; HIV and arthroplasty; Labral tears revisited; Prophylactic surgery for FAI; and Ceramics and impaction grafting
The October 2013 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: Young and impinging; Clothes, weather and femoral heads?; Go long, go cemented; Surgical repair of the abductors?; Aspirin for DVT prophylaxis?; Ceramic-on-polyethylene: a low-wear solution?; ALVAL and ASR™: the story continues….; Salvaging Legg-Calve-Perthes’ disease
The long-term effects of metal-on-metal arthroplasty are currently under scrutiny because of the potential biological effects of metal wear debris. This review summarises data describing the release, dissemination, uptake, biological activity, and potential toxicity of metal wear debris released from alloys currently used in modern orthopaedics. The introduction of risk assessment for the evaluation of metal alloys and their use in arthroplasty patients is discussed and this should include potential harmful effects on immunity, reproduction, the kidney, developmental toxicity, the nervous system and carcinogenesis.
We reviewed the literature on the currently available
choices of bearing surface in total hip replacement (THR). We present
a detailed description of the properties of articulating surfaces
review the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of
existing bearing couples. Recent technological developments in the
field of polyethylene and ceramics have altered the risk of fracture
and the rate of wear, although the use of metal-on-metal bearings has
largely fallen out of favour, owing to concerns about reactions
to metal debris. As expected, all bearing surface combinations have
advantages and disadvantages. A patient-based approach is recommended,
balancing the risks of different options against an individual’s
functional demands. Cite this article:
Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty gained significant
favor in the first decade of the millennium. However, the past several
years have seen increasing reports of failure, pseudotumor and other
adverse reactions. This study presents the results of a single center’s
15-year experience with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty as
strong evidence that metal-on-metal is going, going, gone.
Hip implant retrieval analysis is the most important
source of insight into the performance of new materials and designs
of hip arthroplasties. Even the most rigorous
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is commonly
associated with early hip arthritis. We reviewed our series of 1300
hip resurfacing procedures. More than 90% of our male patients,
with an average age of 53 years, had cam impingement lesions. In
this condition, there are anterior femoral neck osteophytes, and
a retroverted femoral head on a normally anteverted neck. It is
postulated that FAI results in collision of the anterior neck of
the femur against the rim of the acetabulum, causing damage to the
acetabular labrum and articular cartilage, resulting in osteoarthritis.
Early treatment of FAI involves arthroscopic or open removal of
bone from the anterior femoral neck, as well as repair or removal
of labral tears. However, once osteoarthritis has developed, hip
replacement or hip resurfacing is indicated. Hip resurfacing can
re-orient the head and re-shape the neck. This helps to restore
normal biomechanics to the hip, eliminate FAI, and improve range
of motion. Since many younger men with hip arthritis have FAI, and
are also considered the best candidates for hip resurfacing, it
is evident that resurfacing has a role in these patients.
Large femoral heads have been used with increasing
frequency over the last decade. The prime reason is likely the effect
of large heads on stability. The larger head neck ratio, combined
with the increased jump distance of larger heads result in a greater
arc of impingement free motion, and greater resistance to dislocation
in a provocative position. Multiple studies have demonstrated clear
clinical efficacy in diminishing dislocation rates with the use
of large femoral heads. With crosslinked polyethylene, wear has
been shown to be equivalent between larger and smaller heads. However,
the stability advantages of increasing diameter beyond 38 mm have
not been clearly demonstrated. More importantly, recent data implicates
large heads in the increasing prevalence of groin pain and psoas impingement.
There are clear benefits with larger femoral head diameters, but
the advantages of diameters beyond 38 mm have not yet been demonstrated
clinically.
To quantify and compare peri-acetabular bone mineral density
(BMD) between a monoblock acetabular component using a metal-on-metal
(MoM) bearing and a modular titanium shell with a polyethylene (PE)
insert. The secondary outcome was to measure patient-reported clinical
function. A total of 50 patients (25 per group) were randomised to MoM
or metal-on-polyethlene (MoP). There were 27 women (11 MoM) and
23 men (14 MoM) with a mean age of 61.6 years (47.7 to 73.2). Measurements
of peri-prosthetic acetabular and contralateral hip (covariate)
BMD were performed at baseline and at one and two years’ follow-up.
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index
(WOMAC), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score,
Harris hip score, and RAND-36 were also completed at these intervals.Objectives
Methods
Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal
articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to
metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach
to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty
patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history,
querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic
patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular
causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening
may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose.
Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs
are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component
position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation
rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal
ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with
manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with
cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative
of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact
reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections
and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris
is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated
and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue
damage and hence poor clinical outcome.
Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) can detect early
micromovement in unstable implant designs which are likely subsequently
to have a high failure rate. In 2010, the Articular Surface Replacement
(ASR) was withdrawn because of a high failure rate. In 19 ASR femoral
components, the mean micromovement over the first two years after implantation
was 0.107 mm ( We conclude that the ASR femoral component achieves initial stability
and that early migration is not the mode of failure for this resurfacing
arthroplasty.
An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons
presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at
the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over
400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic
phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal
articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision
hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions
on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to
the current literature.
We analysed the outcome of patients with primary
non-metastatic diaphyseal sarcomas who had Extracorporeal irradiation is an oncologically safe and inexpensive
technique for limb salvage in diaphyseal sarcomas and has good functional
results.
This prospective study compares the outcome of
157 hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated tibial components with 164 cemented
components in the ROCC Rotating Platform total knee replacement
in 291 patients. The mean follow-up was 7.6 years (5.2 to 11). There
were two revisions for loosening: one for an HA-coated and one for
a cemented tibial component. Radiological evaluation demonstrated
no radiolucent lines with the HA-coated femoral components. A total
of three HA-coated tibial components exhibited radiolucent lines
at three months post-operatively and these disappeared after three
further months of protected weight-bearing. With HA-coated components
the operating time was shorter (p <
0.006) and the radiological
assessment of the tibial interface was more stable (p <
0.01).
Using revision for aseptic loosening of the tibial component as
the end point, the survival rates at nine years was identical for
both groups at 99.1%. Our results suggest that HA-coated components perform at least
as well as the same design with cemented components and compare
favourably with those of series describing cemented or porous-coated
knee replacements, suggesting that fixation of both components with
hydroxyapatite is a reliable option in primary total knee replacement.
We report the findings of an independent review
of 230 consecutive Birmingham hip resurfacings (BHRs) in 213 patients
(230 hips) at a mean follow-up of 10.4 years (9.6 to 11.7). A total
of 11 hips underwent revision; six patients (six hips) died from
unrelated causes; and 13 patients (16 hips) were lost to follow-up.
The survival rate for the whole cohort was 94.5% (95% confidence
interval (CI) 90.1 to 96.9). The survival rate in women was 89.1%
(95% CI 79.2 to 94.4) and in men was 97.5% (95% CI 92.4 to 99.2).
Women were 1.4 times more likely to suffer failure than men. For
each millimetre increase in component size there was a 19% lower
chance of a failure. The mean Oxford hip score was 45.0 (median
47.0, 28 to 48); mean University of California, Los Angeles activity
score was 7.4 (median 8.0, 3 to 9); mean patient satisfaction score
was 1.4 (median 1.0, 0 to 9). A total of eight hips had lysis in
the femoral neck and two hips had acetabular lysis. One hip had
progressive radiological changes around the peg of the femoral component.
There was no evidence of progressive neck narrowing between five
and ten years. Our results confirm that BHR provides good functional outcome
and durability for men, at a mean follow-up of ten years. We are
now reluctant to undertake hip resurfacing in women with this implant.