We have reviewed 70 Harris-Galante uncemented acetabular components implanted as hybrid hip replacements with cemented stems between 1991 and 1995 in 53 patients whose mean age was 40 years (19 to 49). The mean follow-up was for 13.6 years (12 to 16) with no loss to follow-up. We assessed the patients both clinically and radiologically.

The mean Oxford hip score was 20 (12 to 46) and the mean Harris hip score 81 (37 to 100) at the final review. Radiologically, 27 hips (39%) had femoral osteolysis, 13 (19%) acetabular osteolysis, and 31 (44%) radiolucent lines around the acetabular component. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the outcomes of revision of the acetabular component, revision of the component and polyethylene liner, and impending revision for progressive osteolysis.

The cumulative survival for revision of the acetabular component was 94% (95% confidence interval 88.4 to 99.7), for the component and liner 84% (95% confidence interval 74.5 to 93.5) and for impending revision 55.3% (95% confidence interval 40.6 to 70) at 16 years.

Uncemented acetabular components with polyethylene liners undergo silent lysis and merit regular long-term radiological review.

We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups.

In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.

We report the use of porous metal acetabular revision shells in the treatment of contained bone loss. The outcomes of 53 patients with ≤ 50% acetabular bleeding host bone contact were compared with a control group of 49 patients with > 50% to 85% bleeding host bone contact. All patients were treated with the same type of trabecular metal acetabular revision shell. The mean age at revision was 62.4 years (42 to 80) and the mean follow-up of both groups was 72.4 months (60 to 102). Clinical, radiological and functional outcomes were assessed. There were four (7.5%) mechanical failures in the ≤ 50% host bone contact group and no failures in the > 50% host bone contact group (p = 0.068). Out of both groups combined there were four infections (3.9%) and five recurrent dislocations (4.9%) with a stable acetabular component construct that were revised to a constrained liner. Given the complexity of the reconstructive challenge, porous metal revision acetabular shells show acceptable failure rates at five to ten years’ follow-up in the setting of significant contained bone defects. This favourable outcome might be due to the improved initial stability achieved by a high coefficient of friction between the acetabular implant and the host bone, and the high porosity, which affords good bone ingrowth.