An experimental sheep model was used for impaction allografting of 12 hemiarthroplasty femoral components placed into two equal-sized groups. In group 1, a 50:50 mixture of ApaPore hydroxyapatite bone-graft substitute and allograft was used. In group 2, ApaPore and allograft were mixed in a 90:10 ratio. Both groups were killed at six months. Ground reaction force results demonstrated no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups at 8, 16 and 24 weeks post-operatively, and all animals remained active. The mean bone turnover rates were significantly greater in group 1, at 0.00206 mm/day, compared to group 2 at 0.0013 mm/day (p < 0.05). The results for the area of new bone formation demonstrated no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in thickness of the cement mantle (p > 0.05) and percentage ApaPore-bone contact (p > 0.05).

The results of this animal study demonstrated that a mixture of ApaPore allograft in a 90:10 ratio was comparable to using a 50:50 mixture.

Impaction bone grafting for the reconstitution of bone stock in revision hip surgery has been used for nearly 30 years. Between 1995 and 2001 we used this technique in acetabular reconstruction, in combination with a cemented component, in 304 hips in 292 patients revised for aseptic loosening. The only additional supports used were stainless steel meshes placed against the medial wall or laterally around the acetabular rim to contain the graft. All Paprosky grades of defect were included. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected in surviving patients at a minimum of ten years after the index operation. Mean follow-up was 12.4 years (sd 1.5) (10.0 to 16.0). Kaplan–Meier survival with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 85.9% (95% CI 81.0 to 90.8) at 13.5 years. Clinical scores for pain relief remained satisfactory, and there was no difference in clinical scores between cups that appeared stable and those that appeared radiologically loose.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:188–94.

We report our experience of revision total hip replacement (THR) using the Revitan curved modular titanium fluted revision stem in patients with a full spectrum of proximal femoral defects. A total of 112 patients (116 revisions) with a mean age of 73.4 years (39 to 90) were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (5.3 to 9.1). A total of 12 patients (12 hips) died but their data were included in the survival analysis, and four patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. The clinical outcome, proximal bone regeneration and subsidence were assessed for 101 hips.

The mean Harris Hip Score was 88.2 (45.8 to 100) after five years and there was an increase of the mean Barnett and Nordin-Score, a measure of the proximal bone regeneration, of 20.8 (-3.1 to 52.7). Five stems had to be revised (4.3%), three (2.9%) showed subsidence, five (4.3%) a dislocation and two of 85 aseptic revisions (2.3%) a periprosthetic infection.

At the latest follow-up, the survival with revision of the stem as the endpoint was 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 99.4%) and with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. Peri-prosthetic fractures were not observed.

We report excellent results with respect to subsidence, the risk of fracture, and loosening after femoral revision using a modular curved revision stem with distal cone-in-cone fixation. A successful outcome depends on careful pre-operative planning and the use of a transfemoral approach when the anatomy is distorted or a fracture is imminent, or residual cement or a partially-secured existing stem cannot be removed. The shortest appropriate stem should, in our opinion, be used and secured with > 3 cm fixation at the femoral isthmus, and distal interlocking screws should be used for additional stability when this goal cannot be realised.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:889–95.

Loss of bone stock is a major problem in revision surgery of the hip. Impaction bone grafting of the femur is frequently used when dealing with deficient bone stock. In this retrospective study a consecutive series of 68 patients (69 hips) who had revision of a hip replacement with femoral impaction grafting were reviewed. Irradiated bone allograft was used in all hips. Radiological measurement of subsidence of the stem, incorporation of the graft and remodelling was carried out and showed incorporation of the graft in 26 of 69 hips (38%). However, there was no evidence of trabecular remodelling. Moderate subsidence of 5 mm to 10 mm occurred in ten hips (14.5%), and massive subsidence of > 10 mm in five (7.2%).

The results of this study are less favourable than those of others describing studies of revision of the femoral stem using impaction bone grafting. The absence of the characteristic changes of graft remodelling noted in other series raises the question as to whether irradiated bone graft may be a significant factor influencing the post-operative outcome.

When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83).

The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism.

We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system.

We investigated the early results of modular porous metal components used in 23 acetabular reconstructions associated with major bone loss. The series included seven men and 15 women with a mean age of 67 years (38 to 81), who had undergone a mean of two previous revisions (1 to 7).

Based on Paprosky’s classification, there were 17 type 3A and six type 3B defects. Pelvic discontinuity was noted in one case. Augments were used in 21 hips to support the shell and an acetabular component-cage construct was implanted in one case. At a mean follow-up of 41 months (24 to 62), 22 components remained well fixed. Two patients required rerevision of the liners for prosthetic joint instability. Clinically, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 43.0 pre-operatively (14 to 86) to 75.7 post-operatively (53 to 100). The mean pre-operative Merle d’Aubigné score was 8.2 (3 to 15) and improved to a mean of 13.7 (11 to 18) post-operatively.

These short-term results suggest that modular porous metal components are a viable option in the reconstruction of Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. More data are needed to determine whether the system yields greater long-term success than more traditional methods, such as reconstruction cages and structural allografts.

Aim

Until now, there has been no consensus as to whether stemmed acetabular components are appropriate for use in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) who have major acetabular defects or pelvic discontinuity. We wished to address this deficiency in the literature.

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

Aims. Our objective was describing an algorithm to identify and prevent vascular injury in patients with intrapelvic components. Methods. Patients were defined as at risk to vascular injuries when components or cement migrated 5 mm or more beyond the ilioischial line in any of the pelvic incidences (anteroposterior and Judet view). In those patients, a serial investigation was initiated by a CT angiography, followed by a vascular surgeon evaluation. The investigation proceeded if necessary. The main goal was to assure a safe tissue plane between the hardware and the vessels. Results. In ten at-risk patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and submitted to our algorithm, six were recognized as being high risk to vascular injury during surgery. In those six high-risk patients, a preventive preoperative stent was implanted before the orthopaedic procedure. Four patients needed a second reinforcing stent to protect and to maintain the vessel anatomy deformed by the intrapelvic implants. Conclusion. The evaluation algorithm was useful to avoid blood vessels injury during revision total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):859–866

Objectives. We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. Methods. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression. Results. We demonstrated a prevalence of revision THA due to prosthetic joint infection of 0.4/100 procedures following primary and 1.6/100 procedures following revision hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the three months following primary hip arthroplasty has risen 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1) between 2005 and 2013, and 3.0-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5) following revision hip arthroplasty. Over 1000 procedures are performed annually as a consequence of hip PJI, an increase of 2.6-fold between 2005 and 2013. Conclusions. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip arthroplasty is low, it is rising and, coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, this represents a growing and substantial treatment burden. Cite this article: E. Lenguerrand, M. R. Whitehouse, A. D. Beswick, S. A. Jones, M. L. Porter, A. W. Blom. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:391–398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2017-0003.R1

Aims. We evaluated a large database with mechanical failure of a single uncemented modular femoral component, used in revision hip arthroplasty, as the end point and compared them to a control group treated with the same implant. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors for implant failure were analyzed. . Methods. All cases of a fractured uncemented modular revision femoral component from one manufacturer until April 2017 were identified and the total number of implants sold until April 2017 was used to calculate the fracture rate. The manufacturer provided data on patient demographics, time to failure, and implant details for all notified fractured devices. Patient- and implant-specific risk factors were evaluated using a logistic regression model with multiple imputations and compared to data from a previously published reference group, where no fractures had been observed. The results of a retrieval analysis of the fractured implants, performed by the manufacturer, were available for evaluation. Results. There were 113 recorded cases with fracture at the modular junction, resulting in a calculated fracture rate of 0.30% (113/37,600). The fracture rate of the implant without signs of improper use was 0.11% (41/37,600). In 79% (89/113) of cases with a failed implant, either a lateralized (high offset) neck segment, an extralong head, or the combination of both were used. Logistic regression analysis revealed male sex, high body mass index (BMI), straight component design, and small neck segments were significant risk factors for failure. Investigation of the implants (76/113) showed at least one sign of improper use in 72 cases. Conclusion. Implant failure at the modular junction is associated with patient- and implant-specific risk factors as well as technical errors during implantation. Whenever possible, the use of short and lateralized neck segments should be avoided with this revision system. Implantation instructions and contraindications need to be adhered to and respected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):573–579

Aims. Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. Methods. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. Results. Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212–220

A prospective cohort of 222 patients who underwent revision hip replacement between April 2001 and March 2004 was evaluated to determine predictors of function, pain and activity level between one and two years post-operatively, and to define quality of life outcomes using validated patient reported outcome tools. Predictive models were developed and proportional odds regression analyses were performed to identify factors that predict quality of life outcomes at one and two years post-operatively. The dependent outcome variables were the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function and pain scores, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores. The independent variables included patient demographics, operative factors, and objective quality of life parameters, including pre-operative WOMAC, and the Short Form-12 mental component score. There was a significant improvement (t-test, p < 0.001) in all patient quality of life scores. In the predictive model, factors predictive of improved function (original regression analyses, p < 0.05) included a higher pre-operative WOMAC function score (p < 0.001), age between 60 and 70 years (p < 0.037), male gender (p = 0.017), lower Charnley class (p < 0.001) and aseptic loosening being the indication for revision (p < 0.003). Using the WOMAC pain score as an outcome variable, factors predictive of improvement included the pre-operative WOMAC function score (p = 0.001), age between 60 and 70 years (p = 0.004), male gender (p = 0.005), lower Charnley class (p = 0.001) and no previous revision procedure (p = 0.023). The pre-operative WOMAC function score (p = 0.001), the indication for the operation (p = 0.007), and the operating surgeon (p = 0.008) were significant predictors of the activity assessment at follow-up. Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision hip replacement were established. Although some patient-specific and surgery-specific variables were important, age, gender, Charnley class and pre-operative WOMAC function score had the most robust associations with outcome

Aims. The management of acetabular defects at the time of revision hip arthroplasty surgery is a challenge. This study presents the results of a long-term follow-up study of the use of irradiated allograft bone in acetabular reconstruction. Patients and Methods. Between 1990 and 2000, 123 hips in 110 patients underwent acetabular reconstruction for aseptic loosening, using impaction bone grafting with frozen, irradiated, and morsellized femoral heads and a cemented acetabular component. A total of 55 men and 55 women with a mean age of 64.3 years (26 to 97) at the time of revision surgery are included in this study. Results. At a mean follow-up of 16.9 years, there had been 23 revisions (18.7%), including ten for infection, eight for aseptic loosening, and three for dislocation. Of the 66 surviving hips (58 patients) that could be reassessed, 50 hips (42 patients; 75.6%) were still functioning satisfactorily. Union of the graft had occurred in all hips with a surviving implant. Survival analysis for all indications was 80.6% at 15 years (55 patients at risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) 71.1 to 87.2) and 73.7% at 20 years (eight patients at risk, 95% CI 61.6 to 82.5). Conclusion. Acetabular reconstruction using frozen, irradiated, and morsellized allograft bone and a cemented acetabular component is an effective method of treatment. It gives satisfactory long-term results and is comparable to other types of reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1449–54

This review summarises the technique of impaction grafting with mesh augmentation for the treatment of uncontained acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. The ideal acetabular revision should restore bone stock, use a small socket in the near-anatomic position, and provide durable fixation. Impaction bone grafting, which has been in use for over 40 years, offers the ability to achieve these goals in uncontained defects. The precepts of modern, revision impaction grafting are that the segmental or cavitary defects must be supported with a mesh; the contained cavity is filled with vigorously impacted morselised fresh-frozen allograft; and finally, acrylic cement is used to stabilise the graft and provide rigid, long-lasting fixation of the revised acetabular component. Favourable results have been published with this technique. While having its limitations, it is a viable option to address large acetabular defects in revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):25–30

Aims. To evaluate the hypothesis that failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures can be treated successfully with stem revision using a transfemoral approach and a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem with reproducible rates of fracture healing, stability of the revision stem, and clinically good results. Patients and Methods. A total of 14 patients (11 women, three men) with a mean age of 72.4 years (65 to 90) undergoing revision hip arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B1 were treated using a transfemoral approach to remove the well-fixed stem before insertion of a modular, fluted titanium stem which obtained distal fixation. These patients were clinically and radiologically followed up for a mean 52.2 months (24 to 144). Results. After a mean of 15.5 weeks (standard deviation (. sd. ) 5.7) all fractures had healed. No stems subsided and bony-ingrowth fixation had occurred according to the classification of Engh et al. The mean Harris Hip Score increased from a pre-operative score of 22.2 points (. sd. 9.7) to 81.5 points (. sd. 16.8) 24 months post-operatively. All hips had obtained an excellent result according to the classification of Beals and Tower. Conclusions. The technique described here for stem revision provides reproducibly good results in the treatment of failed osteosynthesis for Vancouver types B1 periprosthetic fractures of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):11–16

The aim of this study was to assess the role of synovial C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic hip infection. We prospectively collected synovial fluid from 89 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty and measured synovial CRP, serum CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and synovial percentages of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN). Patients were classified as septic or aseptic by means of clinical, microbiological, serum and synovial fluid findings. The high viscosity of the synovial fluid precluded the analyses in nine patients permitting the results in 80 patients to be studied. There was a significant difference in synovial CRP levels between the septic (n = 21) and the aseptic (n = 59) cohort. According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, a synovial CRP threshold of 2.5 mg/l had a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 93.3%. The area under the curve was 0.96. Compared with serum CRP and ESR, synovial CRP showed a high diagnostic value. According to these preliminary results, synovial CRP may be a useful parameter in diagnosing chronic periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:173–6