The treatment of substantial proximal femoral bone loss in young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is challenging. We retrospectively analysed the outcome of 28 patients (30 hips) with DDH who underwent revision total hip replacement (THR) in the presence of a deficient proximal femur, which was reconstructed with an allograft prosthetic composite. The mean follow-up was 15 years (8.5 to 25.5). The mean number of previous THRs was three (1 to 8). The mean age at primary THR and at the index reconstruction was 41 years (18 to 61) and 58.1 years (32 to 72), respectively. The indication for revision included mechanical loosening in 24 hips, infection in three and peri-prosthetic fracture in three.

Six patients required removal and replacement of the allograft prosthetic composite, five for mechanical loosening and one for infection. The survivorship at ten, 15 and 20 years was 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91 to 100), 75.5% (95% CI 60 to 95) and 75.5% (95% CI 60 to 95), respectively, with 25, eight, and four patients at risk, respectively. Additionally, two junctional nonunions between the allograft and host femur required bone grafting and plating.

An allograft prosthetic composite affords a good long-term outcome in the management of proximal femoral bone loss in revision THR in patients with DDH, while preserving distal host bone.

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. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

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

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

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

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

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.