We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups.

In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.

Custom-made intercalary endoprostheses may be used for the reconstruction of diaphyseal defects following the resection of bone tumours. The aim of this study was to determine the survival of intercalary endoprostheses with a lap joint design, and to evaluate the clinical results, complications and functional outcome. We retrospectively reviewed six consecutive patients, three of whom underwent limb salvage with intercalary endoprostheses of the tibia, two of the femur, and one of the humerus. Their mean age was 42 years (28 to 64). The mean follow-up was 21.6 months (9 to 58). The humeral prosthesis required revision at 14 months owing to aseptic loosening. There were no implant-related failures. Musculoskeletal Tumour Society functional outcome scores indicated that patients achieved 90% of premorbid function.

Custom intercalary endoprostheses result in reconstructions comparable with, if not better than, those of allografts. Using this design of implant reduces the incidence of early complications and difficulties experienced with previous versions.

Periprosthetic fracture of the femur is an uncommon complication after total hip replacement, but appears to be increasing. We undertook a nationwide observational study to determine the risk factors for failure after treatment of these fractures, examining patient- and implant-related factors, the classification of the fractures and the outcome.

Between 1979 and 2000, 1049 periprosthetic fractures of the femur were reported to the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 245 had a further operation after failure of their initial management. Data were collected from the Register and hospital records. The material was analysed by the use of Poisson regression models.

It was found that the risk of failure of treatment was reduced for Vancouver type B2 injuries (p = 0.0053) if revision of the implant was undertaken (p = 0.0033) or revision and open reduction and internal fixation (p = 0.0039) were performed. Fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 had a significantly higher risk of failure (p = 0.0001). The strongest negative factor was the use of a single plate for fixation (p = 0.001). The most common reasons for failure in this group were loosening of the femoral prosthesis, nonunion and re-fracture.

It is probable that many fractures classified as Vancouver type B1 (n = 304), were in reality type B2 fractures with a loose stem which were not recognised. Plate fixation was inadequate in these cases. The difficulty in separating type B1 from type B2 fractures suggests that the prosthesis should be considered as loose until proven otherwise.

Although it is widely accepted that grade IIIB open tibial fractures require combined specialised orthopaedic and plastic surgery, the majority of patients in the UK initially present to local hospitals without access to specialised trauma facilities. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients presenting directly to a specialist centre (primary group) with that of patients initially managed at local centres (tertiary group).

We reviewed 73 consecutive grade IIIB open tibial shaft fractures with a mean follow-up of 14 months (8 to 48). There were 26 fractures in the primary and 47 in the tertiary group. The initial skeletal fixation required revision in 22 (47%) of the tertiary patients. Although there was no statistically-significant relationship between flap timing and flap failure, all the failures (6 of 63; 9.5%) occurred in the tertiary group. The overall mean time to union of 28 weeks was not influenced by the type of skeletal fixation. Deep infection occurred in 8.5% of patients, but there were no persistently infected fractures. The infection rate was not increased in those patients debrided more than six hours after injury.

The limb salvage rate was 93%. The mean limb functional score was 74% of that of the normal limb. At review, 67% of patients had returned to employment, with a further 10% considering a return after rehabilitation. The times to union, infection rates and Enneking limb reconstruction scores were not statistically different between the primary and tertiary groups.

The increased complications and revision surgery encountered in the tertiary group suggest that severe open tibial fractures should be referred directly to specialist centres for simultaneous combined management by orthopaedic and plastic surgeons.