Large femoral heads have been used with increasing frequency over the last decade. The prime reason is likely the effect of large heads on stability. The larger head neck ratio, combined with the increased jump distance of larger heads result in a greater arc of impingement free motion, and greater resistance to dislocation in a provocative position. Multiple studies have demonstrated clear clinical efficacy in diminishing dislocation rates with the use of large femoral heads. With crosslinked polyethylene, wear has been shown to be equivalent between larger and smaller heads. However, the stability advantages of increasing diameter beyond 38 mm have not been clearly demonstrated. More importantly, recent data implicates large heads in the increasing prevalence of groin pain and psoas impingement. There are clear benefits with larger femoral head diameters, but the advantages of diameters beyond 38 mm have not yet been demonstrated clinically.

Surgical interventions consisting of internal fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However, in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):43–7.

We present a case of early retrieval of an Oxinium femoral head and corresponding polyethylene liner where there was significant surface damage to the head and polyethylene. The implants were retrieved at the time of revision surgery to correct leg-length discrepancy just 48 hours after the primary hip replacement. Appropriate analysis of the retrieved femoral head demonstrated loss of the Oxinium layer with exposure of the underlying substrate and transfer of titanium from the acetabular shell at the time of a reduction of the index total hip replacement. In addition, the level of damage to the polyethylene was extensive despite only 48 hours in situ.

The purpose of this report is to highlight the care that is required at the time of reduction, especially with these hard femoral counter-faces such as Oxinium. To our knowledge, the damage occurring at the time of reduction has not been previously reported following the retrieval of an otherwise well-functioning hip replacement.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients.

However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively.

The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

The use of large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with an increased risk of early failure due to adverse local tissue reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in response to the release of metal ions from the bearing couple and/or head-neck taper corrosion. The aim of this paper was to present a review of the incidence and natural history of ARMD and the forms of treatment, with a focus on the need for and extent of resection or debulking of the pseudotumour. An illustrative case report is presented of a patient with an intra-pelvic pseudotumour associated with a large diameter MoM THA, which was treated successfully with revision of the bearing surface to a dual mobility couple and retention of the well-fixed acetabular and femoral components. The pseudotumour was left in situ. Resolution of the intra-pelvic mass and normalisation of metal ion levels was observed seven months post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:736–40.

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7.

Increased femoral head size may reduce dislocation rates following total hip replacement. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales has highlighted a statistically significant increase in the use of femoral heads ≥ 36 mm in diameter from 5% in 2005 to 26% in 2009, together with an increase in the use of the posterior approach. The aim of this study was to determine whether rates of dislocation have fallen over the same period. National data for England for 247 546 procedures were analysed in order to determine trends in the rate of dislocation at three, six, 12 and 18 months after operation during this time. The 18-month revision rates were also examined.

Between 2005 and 2009 there were significant decreases in cumulative dislocations at three months (1.12% to 0.86%), six months (1.25% to 0.96%) and 12 months (1.42% to 1.11%) (all p < 0.001), and at 18 months (1.56% to 1.31%) for the period 2005 to 2008 (p < 0.001). The 18-month revision rates did not significantly change during the study period (1.26% to 1.39%, odds ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.24), p = 0.118). There was no evidence of changes in the coding of dislocations during this time.

These data have revealed a significant reduction in dislocations associated with the use of large femoral head sizes, with no change in the 18-month revision rate.

We report patient-reported outcomes and complications associated with contemporary periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) surgery in treating symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and compare these outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with similar demographic details. Two consecutive cohorts included patients between aged 18 to 40 years who had undergone either PAO (100 hips; 24 male, 76 female) or THA (55 hips; 18 male, 37 female). At a mean follow-up of 5.9 years (2 to 13), there was significant improvement in the modified Harris hip pain (p < 0.001, PAO and p < 0.001, THA), function (p < 0.001, PAO and p = 0.001, THA), and total scores (p < 0.001, PAO and p < 0.001, THA) within each cohort. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcome scores between the groups. Complication rates were low and similar in each cohort (p = 0.68). Similar to THA, contemporary PAO surgery is a clinically effective procedure that improves function and activity levels, provides pain relief and is associated with an acceptable complication rate.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1322–7.

Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip replacements (THR). Hence, there is great interest in maximising stability to prevent this complication. Head size has been recognised to have a strong influence on the risk of dislocation post-operatively. As femoral head size increases, stability is augmented, secondary to an increase in impingement-free range of movement. Larger head sizes also greatly increase the ‘jump distance’ required for the head to dislocate in an appropriately positioned cup. Level-one studies support the use of larger diameter heads as they decrease the risk of dislocation following primary and revision THR. Highly cross-linked polyethylene has allowed us to increase femoral head size, without a marked increase in wear. However, the thin polyethylene liners necessary to accommodate larger heads may increase the risk of liner fracture and larger heads have also been implicated in causing soft-tissue impingement resulting in groin pain. Larger diameter heads also impart larger forces on the femoral trunnion, which may contribute to corrosion, metal release, and adverse local tissue reactions. Alternative large bearings including large ceramic heads and dual mobility bearings may mitigate some of these risks, and several of these devices have been used with clinical success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):23–6.

Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):101–4.

We have reviewed 70 Harris-Galante uncemented acetabular components implanted as hybrid hip replacements with cemented stems between 1991 and 1995 in 53 patients whose mean age was 40 years (19 to 49). The mean follow-up was for 13.6 years (12 to 16) with no loss to follow-up. We assessed the patients both clinically and radiologically.

The mean Oxford hip score was 20 (12 to 46) and the mean Harris hip score 81 (37 to 100) at the final review. Radiologically, 27 hips (39%) had femoral osteolysis, 13 (19%) acetabular osteolysis, and 31 (44%) radiolucent lines around the acetabular component. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for the outcomes of revision of the acetabular component, revision of the component and polyethylene liner, and impending revision for progressive osteolysis.

The cumulative survival for revision of the acetabular component was 94% (95% confidence interval 88.4 to 99.7), for the component and liner 84% (95% confidence interval 74.5 to 93.5) and for impending revision 55.3% (95% confidence interval 40.6 to 70) at 16 years.

Uncemented acetabular components with polyethylene liners undergo silent lysis and merit regular long-term radiological review.

Arthritis of the hip in the young adult can be a disabling condition. Recent years have witnessed extensive research related to the management of this condition. This article reviews the current status with regard to aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of arthritis of the hip in the young adult.

There is little in the literature on the level of participation in sports which patients undertake after total hip replacement (THR). Our aims in this study were to determine first, the level of sporting activity, second, the predictive factors for returning to sporting activity, and third, the correlation between participation in sports and satisfaction after THR. We retrospectively identified 815 patients who had undergone THR between 1995 and 2005. All were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire regarding their sporting activity. A total of 571 patients (71%) met the inclusion criteria and completed the evaluation. At a mean follow-up of 9.8 years (sd 2.9), 366 patients (64%) returned to sporting activity as defined by a University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score of > 5. The main reasons that patients had for refraining from sports were fear of dislocation (65; 31.6%), avoiding wear (52; 25.4%), and the recommendation of the surgeon (34; 16.6%). There was a significant relationship between higher post-operative participation in sport in those patients with a higher pre-operative Harris hip score (HHS) (p = 0.0074), motivation to participate in sporting activities (p = 0.00022) and a shorter duration of symptoms (p = 0.0034). Finally, there was a correlation between age (p = 0.00013), UCLA score (p = 0.012) and pre-operative HHS (p = 0.00091) and satisfaction.

In conclusion, we found that most patients participate in sporting activity after THR, regardless of the advice of their surgeon, and that there is a correlation between the level of participation and pre-operative function, motivation, duration of symptoms and post-operative satisfaction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1041–6

Large ceramic femoral heads offer several advantages that are potentially advantageous to patients undergoing both primary and revision total hip replacement. Many high-quality studies have demonstrated the benefit of large femoral heads in reducing post-operative instability. Ceramic femoral heads may also offer an advantage in reducing polyethylene wear that has been reported in vitro and is starting to become clinically apparent in mid-term clinical outcome studies. Additionally, the risk of taper corrosion at a ceramic femoral head–neck junction is clearly lower than when using a metal femoral head. With improvements in the material properties of both modern ceramic femoral heads and polyethylene acetabular liners that have reduced the risk of mechanical complications, large ceramic heads have gained popularity in recent years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:63–6.

The treatment of hip dysplasia should be customised for patients individually based on radiographic findings, patient age, and the patient’s overall articular cartilage status. In many patients, restoration of hip anatomy as close to normal as possible with a PAO is the treatment of choice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:21–5.

Symptomatic hip osteonecrosis is a disabling condition with a poorly understood aetiology and pathogenesis. Numerous treatment options for hip osteonecrosis are described, which include non-operative management and joint preserving procedures, as well as total hip replacement (THR). Non-operative or joint preserving treatment may improve outcomes when an early diagnosis is made before the lesion has become too large or there is radiographic evidence of femoral head collapse. The presence of a crescent sign, femoral head flattening, and acetabular involvement indicate a more advanced-stage disease in which joint preserving options are less effective than THR. Since many patients present after disease progression, primary THR is often the only reliable treatment option available. Prior to the 1990s, outcomes of THR for osteonecrosis were poor. However, according to recent reports and systemic reviews, it is encouraging that with the introduction of newer ceramic and/or highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings as well as highly-porous fixation interfaces, THR appears to be a reliable option in the management of end-stage arthritis following hip osteonecrosis in this historically difficult to treat patient population.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:46–50.

We carried out a prospective randomised study designed to compare the penetration rate of acetabular polyethylene inserts of identical design but different levels of cross-linking at a minimum of four years follow-up. A total of 102 patients (102 hips) were randomised to receive either highly cross-linked Durasul, or contemporary Sulene polyethylene inserts at total hip replacement. A single blinded observer used the Martell system to assess penetration of the femoral head. At a mean follow-up of 4.9 years (4.2 to 6.1) the mean femoral head penetration rate was 0.025 mm/year (sd 0.128) in the Durasul group compared with 0.106 mm/year (sd 0.109) in the Sulene group (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.0027). The mean volumetric penetration rate was 29.24 mm³/year (sd 44.08) in the Durasul group compared with 53.32 mm³/year (sd 48.68) in the Sulene group. The yearly volumetric penetration rate was 55% lower in the Durasul group (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.0058). Longer term results are needed to investigate whether less osteolysis will occur.