Aims

We assessed the difference in hospital based and early clinical outcomes between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA).

The April 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Plantar pressures linked to radiographs; Strength training for ankle instability?; Is weight loss good for your feet?; Diabetes and foot surgery complications; Tantalum for failed ankle arthroplasty?; Steroids, costs and Morton’s neuroma; Ankle arthritis and subtalar joint

We evaluated the accuracy with which a custom-made acetabular component could be positioned at revision arthroplasty of the hip in patients with a Paprosky type 3 acetabular defect.

A total of 16 patients with a Paprosky type 3 defect underwent revision surgery using a custom-made trabecular titanium implant. There were four men and 12 women with a median age of 67 years (48 to 79). The planned inclination (INCL), anteversion (AV), rotation and centre of rotation (COR) of the implant were compared with the post-operative position using CT scans.

A total of seven implants were malpositioned in one or more parameters: one with respect to INCL, three with respect to AV, four with respect to rotation and five with respect to the COR.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which CT data acquired for the pre-operative planning of a custom-made revision acetabular implant have been compared with CT data on the post-operative position. The results are encouraging.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:780–5.

Pelvic discontinuity represents a rare but challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. It is most commonly encountered during revision total hip replacement, but can also result from an iatrogentic acetabular fracture during hip replacement. The general principles in management of pelvic discontinuity include restoration of the continuity between the ilium and the ischium, typically with some form of plating. Bone grafting is frequently required to restore pelvic bone stock. The acetabular component is then impacted, typically using an uncemented, trabecular metal component. Fixation with multiple supplemental screws is performed. For larger defects, a so-called ‘cup–cage’ reconstruction, or a custom triflange implant may be required. Pre-operative CT scanning can greatly assist in planning and evaluating the remaining bone stock available for bony ingrowth. Generally, good results have been reported for constructs that restore stability to the pelvis and allow some form of biologic ingrowth.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:109–13.

The April 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Goal-directed fluid therapy in hip fracture; Liberal blood transfusion no benefit in the longer term; Repeated measures: increased accuracy or compounded errors?; Peri-acetabular osteotomy safer than perhaps thought?; Obesity and peri-acetabular osteotomy: poor bedfellows; Stress fracture in peri-acetabular osteotomy; Infection and tantalum implants; Highly crosslinked polyethylene really does work

We compared the rate of revision for instability after total hip replacement (THR) when lipped and non-lipped acetabular liners were used. We hypothesised that the use of a lipped liner in a modular uncemented acetabular component reduces the risk of revision for instability after primary THR. Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, we found that the use of a lipped liner was associated with a significantly decreased rate of revision for instability and for all other indications. Adjusting for the size of the femoral head, the surgical approach and the age and gender of the patient, this difference remained strongly significant (p < 0.001).

We conclude that evidence from the New Zealand registry suggests that the use of lipped liners with modular uncemented acetabular components is associated with a decreased rate of revision for instability after primary THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:884–8.

The February 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Hip arthroplasty in Down syndrome; Bulk femoral autograft successful in acetabular reconstruction; Arthroplasty follow-up: is the internet the solution?; Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture; Salvage arthroplasty following failed hip internal fixation; Bone banking sensible financially and clinically; Allogenic blood transfusion in arthroplasty.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the elution characteristics, antimicrobial activity and mechanical properties of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) loaded with powdered antibiotic, powdered antibiotic with inert filler (xylitol), or liquid antibiotic, particularly focusing on vancomycin and amphotericin B.

A common situation presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon today is a worn acetabular liner with substantial acetabular and pelvic osteolysis. The surgeon has many options for dealing with osteolytic defects. These include allograft, calcium based substitutes, demineralised bone matrix, or combinations of these options with or without addition of platelet rich plasma. To date there are no clinical studies to determine the efficacy of using bone-stimulating materials in osteolytic defects at the time of revision surgery and there are surprisingly few studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of these treatment options. Even when radiographs appear to demonstrate incorporation of graft material CT studies have shown that incorporation is incomplete. The surgeon, in choosing a graft material for a surgical procedure must take into account the efficacy, safety, cost and convenience of that material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B (11 Suppl A):70–2.

Dual mobility cups have two points of articulation, one between the shell and the polyethylene (external bearing) and one between the polyethylene and the femoral head (internal bearing). Movement occurs at the inner bearing; the outer bearing only moves at extremes of movement.

Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a cause of much morbidity and its treatment has significant cost implications. Dual mobility cups provide an increased range of movement and a may reduce the risk of dislocation.

This paper reviews the use of these cups in THA, particularly where stability is an issue. Dual mobility cups may be of benefit in primary THA in patients at a high risk of dislocation, such as those who are older with increased comorbidities and a higher American Association of Anesthesiology grade and those with a neuromuscular disease. They may be used at revision surgery where the risk of dislocation is high, such as in patients with many prior dislocations, or those with abductor deficiency. They may also be used in THA for displaced fractures of the femoral neck, which has a notoriously high rate of dislocation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):60–3.

Aims

To compare radiographic failure and re-operation rates of anatomical coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstructional techniques with non-anatomical techniques after chronic high grade acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries.

We hypothesised that the use of tantalum (Ta) acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was protective against subsequent failure due to infection. We identified 966 patients (421 men, 545 women and 990 hips) who had undergone revision THA between 2000 and 2013. The mean follow up was 40.2 months (3 months to 13.1 years). The mean age of the men and women was 62.3 years (31 to 90) and 65.1 years (25 to 92), respectively.

Titanium (Ti) acetabular components were used in 536 hips while Ta components were used in 454 hips. In total, 73 (7.3%) hips experienced subsequent acetabular failure. The incidence of failure was lower in the Ta group at 4.4% (20/454) compared with 9.9% (53/536) in the Ti group (p < 0.001, odds ratio 2.38; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.27). Among the 144 hips (64 Ta, 80 Ti) for which revision had been performed because of infection, failure due to a subsequent infection was lower in the Ta group at 3.1% (2/64) compared with 17.5% (14/80) for the Ti group (p = 0.006).

Thus, the use of Ta acetabular components during revision THA was associated with a lower incidence of failure from all causes and Ta components were associated with a lower incidence of subsequent infection when used in patients with periprosthetic joint infection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:45–9.

Aims

Glenoid bone loss can be a challenging problem when revising a shoulder arthroplasty. Precise pre-operative planning based on plain radiographs or CT scans is essential. We have investigated a new radiological classification system to describe the degree of medialisation of the bony glenoid and that will indicate the amount of bone potentially available for supporting a glenoid component. It depends on the relationship between the most medial part of the articular surface of the glenoid with the base of the coracoid process and the spinoglenoid notch: it classifies the degree of bone loss into three types.

It also attempts to predict the type of glenoid reconstruction that may be possible (impaction bone grafting, structural grafting or simple non-augmented arthroplasty) and gives guidance about whether a pre-operative CT scan is indicated.

Bone loss in the proximal tibia and distal femur is frequently encountered in revision knee replacement surgery. The various options for dealing with this depend on the extent of any bone loss. We present our results with the use of cementless metaphyseal metal sleeves in 103 patients (104 knees) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 65). At final follow-up, sleeves in 102 knees had good osseointegration. Two tibial sleeves were revised for loosening, possibly due to infection.

The average pre-operative Oxford Knee Score was 23 (11 to 36) and this improved to 32 (15 to 46) post-operatively. These early results encourage us to continue with the technique and monitor the outcomes in the long term.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1640–4.

The continual cycle of bone formation and resorption is carried out by osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts under the direction of the bone-signaling pathway. In certain situations the host cycle of bone repair is insufficient and requires the assistance of bone grafts and their substitutes. The fundamental properties of a bone graft are osteoconduction, osteoinduction, osteogenesis, and structural support. Options for bone grafting include autogenous and allograft bone and the various isolated or combined substitutes of calcium sulphate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and coralline hydroxyapatite. Not all bone grafts will have the same properties. As a result, understanding the requirements of the clinical situation and specific properties of the various types of bone grafts is necessary to identify the ideal graft. We present a review of the bone repair process and properties of bone grafts and their substitutes to help guide the clinician in the decision making process.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):6–9.

The December 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: The midfoot fusion bolt: has it had its day?; Ankle arthroplasty: only for the old?; A return to the Keller’s osteotomy for diabetic feet?; Joint sparing surgery for ankle arthritis in the context of deformity?; Beware the subtalar fusion in the ankle arthrodesis patient?; Nonunion in the foot and ankle a predictive score; Cast versus early weight bearing following Achilles tendon repair; Should we plate Lisfranc injuries?

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21.