Aims

The aims of this retrospective study were to report the feasibility of using 3D-printing technology for patients with a pelvic tumour who underwent reconstruction.

We report the kinematic and early clinical results of a patient- and observer-blinded randomised controlled trial in which CT scans were used to compare potential impingement-free range of movement (ROM) and acetabular component cover between patients treated with either the navigated ‘femur-first’ total hip arthroplasty (THA) method (n = 66; male/female 29/37, mean age 62.5 years; 50 to 74) or conventional THA (n = 69; male/female 35/34, mean age 62.9 years; 50 to 75). The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Harris hip score, the Euro-Qol-5D and the Mancuso THA patient expectations score were assessed at six weeks, six months and one year after surgery. A total of 48 of the patients (84%) in the navigated ‘femur-first’ group and 43 (65%) in the conventional group reached all the desirable potential ROM boundaries without prosthetic impingement for activities of daily living (ADL) in flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and rotation (p = 0.016). Acetabular component cover and surface contact with the host bone were > 87% in both groups. There was a significant difference between the navigated and the conventional groups’ Harris hip scores six weeks after surgery (p = 0.010). There were no significant differences with respect to any clinical outcome at six months and one year of follow-up. The navigated ‘femur-first’ technique improves the potential ROM for ADL without prosthetic impingement, although there was no observed clinical difference between the two treatment groups.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:890–8.

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):17–21.

Conventional cemented acetabular components are reported to have a high rate of failure when implanted into previously irradiated bone. We recommend the use of a cemented reconstruction with the addition of an acetabular reinforcement cross to improve fixation.

We reviewed a cohort of 45 patients (49 hips) who had undergone irradiation of the pelvis and a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an acetabular reinforcement cross. All hips had received a minimum dose of 30 Gray (Gy) to treat a primary nearby tumour or metastasis. The median dose of radiation was 50 Gy (Q1 to Q3: 45 to 60; mean: 49.57, 32 to 72).

The mean follow-up after THA was 51 months (17 to 137). The cumulative probability of revision of the acetabular component for a mechanical reason was 0% (0 to 0%) at 24 months, 2.9% (0.2 to 13.3%) at 60 months and 2.9% (0.2% to 13.3%) at 120 months, respectively. One hip was revised for mechanical failure and three for infection.

Cemented acetabular components with a reinforcement cross provide good medium-term fixation after pelvic irradiation. These patients are at a higher risk of developing infection of their THA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:177–84.

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

We report a 12- to 15-year implant survival assessment of a prospective single-surgeon series of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). The earliest 1000 consecutive BHRs including 288 women (335 hips) and 598 men (665 hips) of all ages and diagnoses with no exclusions were prospectively followed-up with postal questionnaires, of whom the first 402 BHRs (350 patients) also had clinical and radiological review.

Mean follow-up was 13.7 years (12.3 to 15.3). In total, 59 patients (68 hips) died 0.7 to 12.6 years following surgery from unrelated causes. There were 38 revisions, 0.1 to 13.9 years (median 8.7) following operation, including 17 femoral failures (1.7%) and seven each of infections, soft-tissue reactions and other causes. With revision for any reason as the end-point Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed 97.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9 to 97.9) and 95.8% (95% CI 95.1 to 96.5) survival at ten and 15 years, respectively. Radiological assessment showed 11 (3.5%) femoral and 13 (4.1%) acetabular radiolucencies which were not deemed failures and one radiological femoral failure (0.3%).

Our study shows that the performance of the BHR continues to be good at 12- to 15-year follow-up. Men have better implant survival (98.0%; 95% CI 97.4 to 98.6) at 15 years than women (91.5%; 95% CI 89.8 to 93.2), and women < 60 years (90.5%; 95% CI 88.3 to 92.7) fare worse than others. Hip dysplasia and osteonecrosis are risk factors for failure. Patients under 50 years with osteoarthritis fare best (99.4%; 95% CI 98.8 to 100 survival at 15 years), with no failures in men in this group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1298–1306.

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results.

A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions.

We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort.

Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91.

Objectives

We aimed to determine the effect of surgical approach on the histology of the femoral head following resurfacing of the hip.

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to determine whether the five-year results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Canada justified the continued use of HRA; and second, to identify whether greater refinement of patient selection was warranted.

This was a retrospective cohort study that involved a review of 2773 HRAs performed between January 2001 and December 2008 at 11 Canadian centres. Cox’s proportional hazards models were used to analyse the predictors of failure of HRA. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to predict the cumulative survival rate at five years. The factors analysed included age, gender, body mass index, pre-operative hip pathology, surgeon’s experience, surgical approach, implant sizes and implant types. The most common modes of failure were also analysed.

The 2773 HRAs were undertaken in 2450 patients: 2127 in men and 646 in women. The mean age at operation was 50.5 years (sd 8.72; 18 to 82) and mean follow-up was 3.4 years (sd 2.1; 2.0 to 10.1). At the last follow-up a total of 101 HRAs (3.6%) required revision. Using revision for all causes of failure as the endpoint, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a cumulative survival of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1 to 96.9) at five years. With regard to gender, the five-year overall survival was 97.4% in men (95% CI 97.1 to 97.7) and 93.6% in women (95% CI 92.6 to 94.6). Female gender, smaller femoral components, specific implant types and a diagnosis of childhood hip problems were associated with higher rates of failure. The most common cause of failure was fracture of the femoral neck, followed by loosening of the femoral component.

The failure rates of HRA at five years justify the ongoing use of this technique in men. Female gender is an independent predictor of failure, and a higher failure rate at five years in women leads the authors to recommend this technique only in exceptional circumstances for women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1044–50.

Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre.

In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of 51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1 to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended on gender and the size of the implant. In female hips (n = 267) the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 (sd 8) and the mean UCLA activity score was 6.4 (sd 2). In male hips (n = 379) the ten-year survival was 95% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.4), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 1.7%, the mean OHS was 45 (sd 6) and the mean UCLA score was 7.6 (sd 2). In the most demanding subgroup, comprising male patients aged < 50 years treated for primary osteoarthritis, the survival was 99% (95% CI 97 to 100).

This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with conventional THR. In contrast, the results in women have been poor and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of pseudotumour with the passage of time.

Objectives

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was introduced into clinical practice because it was perceived to be a better alternative to conventional total hip replacement for young and active patients. However, an increasing number of reports of complications have arisen focusing on design and orientation of the components, the generation of metallic wear particles and serum levels of metallic ions. The procedure introduced a combination of two elements: large-dimension components and hard abrasive particles of metal wear. The objective of our study was to investigate the theory that microseparation of the articular surfaces draws in a high volume of bursal fluid and its contents into the articulation, and at relocation under load would generate high pressures of fluid ejection, resulting in an abrasive water jet.

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.

Fracture of the neck of the femur after resurfacing arthroplasty usually leads to failure and conversion to a total hip replacement. We describe an intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck sustained after hip resurfacing which was treated by cannulated screws, resulting in union and retention of the resurfacing implant. The result at follow-up three years later was very satisfactory with a Harris hip score of 99.

We report the survival, radiological and functional outcomes of a single surgeon series of his first 144 consecutive Birmingham hip resurfacing procedures (130 patients) at a minimum of ten years. There were ten revisions during this time. Although no patients were lost to follow-up some did not complete the scoring assessment or undergo radiological assessment at ten years.

The ten-year survival for male patients was 98.0% (95% confidence interval 95.2 to 100). The ten-year survival for the total cohort with aseptic revision as the endpoint was 95.5% (95% confidence interval 91.8 to 99.0) and including revisions for sepsis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval 89.2 to 97.6). The median modified Oxford hip score at ten years was 4.2% (interquartile range 0 to 19) and the median University of California, Los Angeles score was 7.0 (interquartile range 5.0 to 8.0).

This study confirms the midterm reports that metal-on-metal hip resurfacing using the Birmingham Hip provides a durable alternative to total hip replacement, particularly in younger male patients wishing to maintain a high level of function, with low risk of revision for at least ten years.

The cause of fracture of the femoral neck after hip resurfacing is poorly understood. In order to evaluate the role of avascular necrosis we compared 19 femoral heads retrieved at revision for fracture of the femoral neck and 13 retrieved for other reasons.

We developed a new technique of assessing avascular necrosis in the femoral head by determining the percentage of empty osteocyte lacunae present. Femoral heads retrieved as controls at total hip replacement for osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis had 9% (sd 4; n = 13) and 85% (sd 5; n = 10, p < 0.001) empty lacunae, respectively.

In the fracture group the percentage of empty lacunae was 71% (sd 22); in the other group it was 21% (sd 13). The differences between the groups were highly significant (p < 0.001).

We conclude that fracture after resurfacing of the hip is associated with a significantly greater percentage of empty osteocyte lacunae within the trabecular bone. This indicates established avascular necrosis and suggests that damage to the blood supply at the time of surgery is a potent risk factor for fracture of the femoral neck after hip resurfacing.

Pseudotumour is a rare but important complication of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing that occurs much more commonly in women than in men. We examined the relationship between head-neck ratio (HNR) and pseudotumour formation in 18 resurfaced hips (18 patients) revised for pseudotumour and 42 asymptomatic control resurfaced hips (42 patients).

Patients in whom pseudotumour formation had occurred had higher pre-operative HNR than the control patients (mean 1.37 (sd 0.10) vs mean 1.30 (sd 0.08) p = 0.001). At operation the patients with pseudotumours had a greater reduction in the size of their femoral heads (p = 0.035) and subsequently had greater neck narrowing (mean 10.1% (sd 7.2) vs mean 3.8% (sd 3.2) p < 0.001). No female patient with a pre-operative HNR ≤ 1.3 developed a pseudotumour.

We suggest that reducing the size of the femoral head, made possible by a high pre-operative HNR, increases the risk of impingement and edge loading, and may contribute to high wear and pseudotumour formation. As the incidence of pseudotumour is low in men, it appears safe to perform resurfacing in men. However, this study suggests that it is also reasonable to resurface in women with a pre-operative HNR ≤ 1.3.

The presence of pseudotumours, which are soft-tissue masses relating to the hip, after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty has been associated with elevated levels of metal ions in serum, suggesting that pseudotumours occur when there is increased wear. We aimed to quantify the wear in vivo of implants revised for pseudotumours (eight) and of a control group of implants (22) revised for other reasons of failure.

We found that the implant group with pseudotumours had a significantly higher rate of median linear wear of the femoral component at 8.1 μm/year (2.75 to 25.4) than the 1.79 μm/year (0.82 to 4.15; p = 0.002) of the non-pseudotumour group. For the acetabular component a significantly higher rate of median linear wear of 7.36 μm/year (1.61 to 24.9) was observed in the pseudotumour group compared with 1.28 μm/year (0.81 to 3.33, p = 0.001) in the other group. Wear of the acetabular component in the pseudotumour group always involved the edge of the implant, indicating that edge-loading had occurred.

Our findings are the first direct evidence that pseudotumour is associated with increased wear at the metal-on-metal articulation. Furthermore, edge-loading with the loss of fluid-film lubrication may be an important mechanism of generation of wear in patients with a pseudotumour.

Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and often lead to revision. Our aim was to determine the severity of this complication by assessing the outcome of revision in these circumstances and by comparing this with the outcome of other metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revisions as well as that of matched primary total hip replacements.

We identified 53 hips which had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and required revision at a mean of 1.59 years (0.01 to 6.69) after operation. Of these, 16 were revised for pseudotumours, 21 for fracture and 16 for other reasons. These were matched by age, gender and diagnosis with 103 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement with the Exeter implant.

At a mean follow-up of three years (0.8 to 7.2) the outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision for pseudotumour was poor with a mean Oxford hip score of 20.9 (sd 9.3) and was significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome for fracture with a mean Oxford hip score of 40.2 (sd 9.2) or that for other causes with a mean Oxford hip score of 37.8 (sd 9.4). The clinical outcome of revision for pseudotumour was also significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome of matched primary total hip replacements. By contrast, the outcome for fracture and other causes was not significantly different from that of matched primary total hip replacements (p = 0.065). After revision for pseudotumour there were three cases of recurrent dislocation, three of palsy of the femoral nerve, one of stenosis of the femoral artery and two of loosening of the component. Five hips required further revision. In three of these there was evidence of recurrent pseudotumour, and one is currently awaiting further revision. The incidence of major complications after revision for pseudotumour (50%) was significantly higher (p = 0.018) than that after revision for other causes (14%).

The outcome of revision for pseudotumour is poor and consideration should be given to early revision to limit the extent of the soft-tissue destruction. The outcome of resurfacing revision for other causes is good.

The June 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether metal-on-metal is really such a disaster; resurfacings with unexplained pain; large heads and high ion levels; hip arthroscopy for FAI; the inaccuracy of clinical tests for impingement; arthroscopic lengthening of iliopsoas; the OA hip; the injured hamstring – football’s most common injury; an algorithm for hip fracture surgery; and sparing piriformis at THR.

This study reports on ceramic-on-metal (CoM) bearings in total hip replacement. Whole blood metal ion levels were measured. The median increase in chromium and cobalt at 12 months was 0.08 μg/1 and 0.22 μg/1, respectively, in CoM bearings. Comparable values for metal-on-metal (MoM) were 0.48 μg/1 and 0.32 μg/1. The chromium levels were significantly lower in CoM than in MoM bearings (p = 0.02). The cobalt levels were lower, but the difference was not significant. Examination of two explanted ceramic heads revealed areas of thin metal transfer. CoM bearings (one explanted head and acetabular component, one explanted head and new acetabular component, and three new heads and acetabular components) were tested in a hip joint simulator. The explanted head and acetabular component had higher bedding-in. However, after one million cycles all the wear rates were the same and an order of magnitude less than that reported for MoM bearings. There were four outliers in each clinical group, primarily related to component malposition.