The aim of this prospective randomised study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of a cemented all-polyethylene Ultima acetabular component with those of a cementless porous-coated acetabular component (PFC) following total hip replacement (THR). A total of 287 patients received either a polyethylene acetabular component (group A) or a cobalt–chromium porous-coated component (group B) with an identical cemented femoral component and 28 mm cobalt-chromium head, thus making it the largest study of its type. Patients were evaluated radiologically and clinically using the Harris hip score (HHS). Group A comprised 183 patients (73 male, 110 female) with a mean age of 71.3 years (55 to 89). Group B comprised 104 patients (48 male, 56 female) with a mean age of 69.8 years (56 to 89). A total of 16 patients (13 in Group A, three in Group B) did not have post-operative data for analysis. The mean follow-up in group A was 7.52 years (0.4 to 15.0) and in Group B 7.87 years (0.5 to 14.0).

At final follow-up the mean HHS was similar between groups A and B (74.5 (25 to 100) and 78.0 (37 to 100), respectively; p = 0.068). The total number of revisions for any cause was 28, 17 of which were in group A and 11 in group B. The ten-year survivorship was 86.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.4 to 92.1) and 89.2% (95% CI 78.3 to 94.8) for groups A and B, respectively (log-rank p-value = 0.938). A total of 20 cemented and two cementless acetabular components had evidence of acetabular radiolucencies or acetabular component migration at last follow-up (p = 0.001).

These results indicate that patients with a cemented all-polyethylene and cementless porous-coated polyethylene lined acetabular component have similar long-term clinical outcomes.

The increasing need for total hip replacement (THR) in an ageing population will inevitably generate a larger number of revision procedures. The difficulties encountered in dealing with the bone deficient acetabulum are amongst the greatest challenges in hip surgery. The failed acetabular component requires reconstruction to restore the hip centre and improve joint biomechanics. Impaction bone grafting is successful in achieving acetabular reconstruction using both cemented and cementless techniques. Bone graft incorporation restores bone stock whilst providing good component stability. We provide a summary of the evidence and current literature regarding impaction bone grafting using both cemented and cementless techniques in revision THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:98–102.

The June 2015 Oncology Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Infection in megaprosthesis; Impressive results for mid femoral reconstruction; Revered teaching or old myth? Femoral neck protection in metastatic disease; Megaprosthesis about the knee; Malignant transformation in multiple hereditary exostoses; Fracture of intercalary bone allograft; Comorbidity and outcomes in sarcoma; A worrying turn? Use of denosumab for giant cell tumour of bone

The June 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Syndesmosis and outcomes in ankle fracture; Ankle arthrodesis or arthroplasty: a complications-based analysis; Crosslinked polyethylene and ankle arthroplasty; Reducing screw removal in calcaneal osteotomies; Revisiting infection control policies; Chevron osteotomy: proximal or distal?; Ankle distraction for osteoarthritis

The June 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Modular femoral necks: early signs are not good; is corrosion to blame for modular neck failures; metal-on-metal is not quite a closed book; no excess failures in fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures; noise no problem in hip replacement; heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy: are NSAIDs the answer?; thrombotic and bleeding events surprisingly low in total joint replacement; and the elephant in the room: complications and surgical volume.

The June 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: neuraxial anaesthesia and large joint arthroplasty; revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery; acetabular version and clinical outcomes in impingement surgery; hip precautions may be ineffective; implant selection and cost effectiveness; femoroacetabular impingement in the older age group; multiple revision in hip arthroplasty

The June 2015 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: HIV-related implant surgery in trauma; Major transfusion under the spotlight; Surgery and mortality in elderly acetabular fractures; Traction pin safety; Obesity and trauma; Salvage of acetabular fixation in the longer term

The best method of managing a fracture of the distal humerus in a frail low-demand patient with osteoporotic bone remains controversial. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has been recommended for patients in whom open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is not possible. Conservative methods of treatment, including the ‘bag of bones’ technique (acceptance of displacement of the bony fragments and early mobilisation), are now rarely considered as they are believed to give a poor functional result.

We reviewed 40 elderly and low-demand patients (aged 50 to 93 years, 72% women) with a fracture of the distal humerus who had been treated conservatively at our hospital between March 2008 and December 2013, and assessed their short- and medium-term functional outcome.

In the short-term, the mean Broberg and Morrey score improved from 42 points (poor; 23 to 80) at six weeks after injury to 67 points (fair; 40 to 88) by three months.

In the medium-term, surviving patients (n = 20) had a mean Oxford elbow score of 30 points (7 to 48) at four years and a mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score of 38 points (0 to 75): 95% reported a functional range of elbow flexion. The cumulative rate of fracture union at one year was 53%. The mortality at five years approached 40%.

Conservative management of a fracture of the distal humerus in a low-demand patient only gives a modest functional result, but avoids the substantial surgical risks associated with primary ORIF or TEA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1132–8.

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

This conversation represents an attempt by several arthroplasty surgeons to critique several abstracts presented over the last year as well as to use them as a jumping off point for trying to figure out where they fit in into our current understanding of multiple issues in modern hip and knee arthroplasty.

As part of the national initiative to reduce waiting times for joint replacement surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust referred 224 patients to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 258 Kinemax TKRs were performed between November 2004 and August 2006. Of these, a total of 199 patients (232 TKRs, 90%) have been followed up for five years. This cohort was compared with 258 consecutive TKRs in 250 patients, performed at Cardiff and Vale Orthopaedic Centre (CAVOC) over a similar time period. The five year cumulative survival rate was 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.0 to 86.0) in the Weston-Super-Mare cohort and 95.0% (95% CI 90.2 to 98.2) in the CAVOC cohort with revision for any reason as the endpoint. The relative risk for revision at Weston-Super-Mare compared with CAVOC was 3.88 (p < 0.001). For implants surviving five years, the mean Oxford knee scores (OKS) and mean EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores were similar (OKS: Weston-Super-Mare 29 (2 to 47) vs CAVOC 29.8 (3 to 48), p = 0.61; EQ-5D: Weston-Super-Mare 0.53 (-0.38 to 1.00) vs CAVOC 0.55 (-0.32 to 1.00), p = 0.79). Patients with revised TKRs had significantly lower Oxford knee and EQ-5D scores (p < 0.001).

The results show a higher revision rate for patients operated at Weston-Super-Mare Treatment Centre, with a reduction in functional outcome and quality of life after revision. This further confirms that patients moved from one area to another for joint replacement surgery fare poorly.

Femoral revision after cemented total hip replacement (THR) might include technical difficulties, following essential cement removal, which might lead to further loss of bone and consequently inadequate fixation of the subsequent revision stem.

Femoral impaction allografting has been widely used in revision surgery for the acetabulum, and subsequently for the femur. In combination with a primary cemented stem, impaction grafting allows for femoral bone restoration through incorporation and remodelling of the impacted morsellized bone graft by the host skeleton. Cavitary bone defects affecting meta-physis and diaphysis leading to a wide femoral shaft, are ideal indications for this technique. Cancellous allograft bone chips of 1 mm to 2 mm size are used, and tapered into the canal with rods of increasing diameters. To impact the bone chips into the femoral canal a prosthesis dummy of the same dimensions of the definitive cemented stem is driven into the femur to ensure that the chips are very firmly impacted. Finally, a standard stem is cemented into the neo-medullary canal using bone cement.

To date several studies have shown favourable results with this technique, with some excellent long-term results reported in independent clinical centres worldwide.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:92–4.

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.

Most hip fractures treated with modern internal fixation techniques will heal. However, failures occasionally occur and require revision procedures. Salvage strategies employed during revision are based on whether the fixation failure occurs in the femoral neck, or in the intertrochanteric region. Patient age and remaining bone stock also influence decision making. For fractures in young patients, efforts are generally focused on preserving the native femoral head via osteotomies and repeat internal fixation. For failures in older patients, some kind of hip replacement is usually selected. Disuse osteopenia, deformity, bone loss, and stress-risers from previous internal fixation devices all pose technical challenges to successful reconstruction. Attention to detail is important in order to minimise complications. In the majority of cases, good outcomes have been reported for the various salvage strategies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:7–10.

We compared the length of hospitalisation, rate of infection, dislocation of the hip and revision, and mortality following primary hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (n = 1064) and a matched control group (n = 3192). The data were collected from nationwide Finnish health registers. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a longer peri-operative hospitalisation (median 13 days vs eight days, p < 0.001) and an increased risk for hip revision with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.00). Dislocation was the leading indication for revision. There was no difference in the rates of infection, dislocation of the hip, knee revision and short-term mortality. In long-term follow-up, patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a higher mortality (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.70), and only one third survived ten years post-operatively. Increased age and comorbidity were associated with longer peri-operative hospitalisation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:654–61.

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 natural history of primary anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint in adolescent patients remains unclear and there is no consensus for management of these patients.

The objectives of this study were to report the natural history of primary anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint in adolescent patients and to identify the risk factors for recurrent dislocation.

We reviewed prospectively-collected clinical and radiological data on 133 adolescent patients diagnosed with a primary anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint who had been managed non-operatively at our hospital between 1996 and 2008. There were 115 male (86.5%) and 18 female patients (13.5%) with a mean age of 16.3 years (13 to 18) and a mean follow-up of 95.2 months (1 to 215).

During follow-up, 102 (absolute incidence of 76.7%) patients had a recurrent dislocation. The median interval between primary and recurrent dislocation was ten months (95% CI 7.4 to 12.6). Applying survival analysis the likelihood of having a stable shoulder one year after the initial injury was 59% (95% CI 51.2 to 66.8), 38% (95% CI 30.2 to 45.8%) after two years, 21% (95% CI 13.2 to 28.8) after five years, and 7% (95% CI 1.1 to 12.9) after ten years. Neither age nor gender significantly predicted recurrent dislocation during follow-up.

We conclude that adolescent patients with a primary anterior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint have a high rate of recurrent dislocation, which usually occurs within two years of their initial injury: these patients should be considered for early operative stabilisation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:520–6.

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.

Stems improve the mechanical stability of tibial components in total knee replacement (TKR), but come at a cost of stress shielding along their length. Their advantages include resistance to shear, reduced tibial lift-off and increased stability by reducing micromotion. Longer stems may have disadvantages including stress shielding along the length of the stem with associated reduction in bone density and a theoretical risk of subsidence and loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture and end-of-stem pain. These features make long stems unattractive in the primary TKR setting, but often desirable in revision surgery with bone loss and instability. In the revision scenario, stems are beneficial in order to convey structural stability to the construct and protect the reconstruction of bony defects. Cemented and uncemented long stemmed implants have different roles depending on the nature of the bone loss involved.

This review discusses the biomechanics of the design of tibial components and stems to inform the selection of the component and the technique of implantation.