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.

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.

A total of 31 patients, (20 women, 11 men; mean age 62.5 years old; 23 to 81), who underwent conversion of a Girdlestone resection-arthroplasty (RA) to a total hip replacement (THR) were compared with 93 patients, (60 women, 33 men; mean age 63.4 years old; 20 to 89), who had revision THR surgery for aseptic loosening in a retrospective matched case-control study. Age, gender and the extent of the pre-operative bone defect were similar in all patients. Mean follow-up was 9.3 years (5 to 18).

Pre-operative function and range of movement were better in the control group (p = 0.01 and 0.003, respectively) and pre-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) was greater in the RA group (p < 0.001). The post-operative clinical outcome was similar in both groups except for mean post-operative LLD, which was greater in the study group (p = 0.003). There was a significant interaction effect for LLD in the study group (p < 0.001). A two-way analysis of variance showed that clinical outcome depended on patient age (patients older than 70 years old had worse pre-operative pain, p = 0.017) or bone defect (patients with a large acetabular bone defect had higher LLD, p = 0.006, worse post-operative function p = 0.009 and range of movement, p = 0.005), irrespective of the group.

Despite major acetabular and femoral bone defects requiring complex surgical reconstruction techniques, THR after RA shows a clinical outcome similar to those obtained in aseptic revision surgery for hips with similar sized bone defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1478–84.

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.

The April 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: hip cartilage and magnets; labral repair or resection; who benefits from injection; rotational osteotomy for osteonecrosis; whether ceramic implants risk fracture; dual articulation; and hydroxyapatite.

A moderator and panel of five experts led an interactive session in discussing five challenging and interesting patient case presentations involving surgery of the hip. The hip pathologies reviewed included failed open reduction internal fixation of subcapital femoral neck fracture, bilateral hip disease, evaluation of pain after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, avascular necrosis, aseptic loosening secondary to osteolysis and polyethylene wear, and management of ceramic femoral head fracture.

The aims of this study were to determine the functional impact and financial burden of isolated and recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our secondary goal was to determine whether there was a difference between patients who were treated non-operatively and those who were treated operatively.

We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients who had suffered dislocation of a primary THA. Their mean age was 67 years (41 to 92) and the mean follow-up was 3.8 years (2.1 to 8.2).

Because patients with recurrent dislocation were three times more likely to undergo operative treatment (p < 0.0001), they ultimately had a significantly higher mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) (p = 0.0001), lower mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (p = 0.001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than patients with a single dislocation. Likewise, those who underwent operative treatment had a higher mean HHS (p < 0.0001), lower mean WOMAC score (p < 0.0001) and a higher mean SF-12 score (p < 0.0001) than those who were treated non-operatively.

Recurrent dislocation and operative treatment increased costs by 300% (£11 456; p < 0.0001) and 40% (£5217; p < 0.0001), respectively.

The operative treatment of recurrent dislocation results in significantly better function than non-operative management. Moreover, the increase in costs for operative treatment is modest compared with that of non-operative measures.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:1046–9.

When fracture of an extensively porous-coated femoral component occurs, its removal at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may require a femoral osteotomy and the use of a trephine. The remaining cortical bone after using the trephine may develop thermally induced necrosis. A retrospective review identified 11 fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral components requiring removal using a trephine with a minimum of two years of follow-up.

The mean time to failure was 4.6 years (1.7 to 9.1, standard deviation (sd) 2.3). These were revised using a larger extensively porous coated component, fluted tapered modular component, a proximally coated modular component, or a proximal femoral replacement. The mean clinical follow-up after revision THA was 4.9 years (2 to 22, sd 3.1). The mean diameter of the femoral component increased from 12.7 mm (sd 1.9) to 16.2 mm (sd 3.4; p >  0.001). Two revision components had radiographic evidence of subsidence that remained radiographically stable at final follow-up. The most common post-operative complication was instability affecting six patients (54.5%) on at least one occasion.

A total of four patients (36.4%) required further revision: three for instability and one for fracture of the revision component. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean Harris hip score before implant fracture (82.4; sd 18.3) and after trephine removal and revision THA (81.2; sd 14.8, p = 0.918).

These findings suggest that removal of a fractured, well-fixed, uncemented, extensively porous-coated femoral component using a trephine does not compromise subsequent fixation at revision THA and the patient’s pre-operative level of function can be restored. However, the loss of proximal bone stock before revision may be associated with a high rate of dislocation post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1192–6.

Adverse reaction to wear and corrosion debris is a cause for concern in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Modular junctions are a potential source of such wear products and are associated with secondary pseudotumour formation.

We present a consecutive series of 17 patients treated at our unit for this complication following metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (MoP) THA. We emphasise the risk of misdiagnosis as infection, and present the aggregate laboratory results and pathological findings in this series.

The clinical presentation was pain, swelling or instability. Solid, cystic and mixed soft-tissue lesions were noted on imaging and confirmed intra-operatively. Corrosion at the head–neck junction was noted in all cases. No bacteria were isolated on multiple pre- and intra-operative samples yet the mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 49 (9 to 100) and C-reactive protein 32 (0.6 to 106) and stromal polymorphonuclear cell counts were noted in nine cases.

Adverse soft–tissue reactions can occur in MoP THA owing to corrosion products released from the head–neck junction. The diagnosis should be carefully considered when investigating pain after THA. This may avoid the misdiagnosis of periprosthetic infection with an unidentified organism and mitigate the unnecessary management of these cases with complete single- or two-stage exchange.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1024–1030.

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):17–21.

Conventional cemented acetabular components are reported to have a high rate of failure when implanted into previously irradiated bone. We recommend the use of a cemented reconstruction with the addition of an acetabular reinforcement cross to improve fixation.

We reviewed a cohort of 45 patients (49 hips) who had undergone irradiation of the pelvis and a cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an acetabular reinforcement cross. All hips had received a minimum dose of 30 Gray (Gy) to treat a primary nearby tumour or metastasis. The median dose of radiation was 50 Gy (Q1 to Q3: 45 to 60; mean: 49.57, 32 to 72).

The mean follow-up after THA was 51 months (17 to 137). The cumulative probability of revision of the acetabular component for a mechanical reason was 0% (0 to 0%) at 24 months, 2.9% (0.2 to 13.3%) at 60 months and 2.9% (0.2% to 13.3%) at 120 months, respectively. One hip was revised for mechanical failure and three for infection.

Cemented acetabular components with a reinforcement cross provide good medium-term fixation after pelvic irradiation. These patients are at a higher risk of developing infection of their THA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:177–84.

Total hip replacement (THR) after acetabular fracture presents unique challenges to the orthopaedic surgeon. The majority of patients can be treated with a standard THR, resulting in a very reasonable outcome. Technical challenges however include infection, residual pelvic deformity, acetabular bone loss with ununited fractures, osteonecrosis of bone fragments, retained metalwork, heterotopic ossification, dealing with the sciatic nerve, and the difficulties of obtaining long-term acetabular component fixation. Indications for an acute THR include young patients with both femoral head and acetabular involvement with severe comminution that cannot be reconstructed, and the elderly, with severe bony comminution. The outcomes of THR for established post-traumatic arthritis include excellent pain relief and functional improvements. The use of modern implants and alternative bearing surfaces should improve outcomes further.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:11–16.

Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies. Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup, typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available. Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability. The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned, it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.

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.

We report a multicentre prospective consecutive study assessing the long-term outcome of the proximally hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated ABG II monobloc femoral component in a series of 1148 hips in 1053 patients with a mean age at surgery of 64.77 years (22 to 80) at a mean follow-up of 10.84 years (10 to 15.25). At latest follow-up, the mean total Harris hip score was 94.7 points (sd; 6.87; 49 to 100), and the mean Merle d’Aubigné–Postel score was 17.6 points (sd 1.12; 7 to 18). The mean total Engh radiological score score was 21.54 (sd 5.77; 3.5 to 27), with 95.81% of ‘confirmed ingrowth’, according to Engh’s classification. With aseptic loosening or pain as endpoints, three AGB II stems (0.26%) failed, giving a 99.7% survival rate (se 0.002; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.994 to 1) at 14 years’ follow-up. The survival of patients ≤ 50 years of age (99.0% (se 0.011; 95% CI 0.969 to 1)) did not differ significantly from those of patients aged > 50 years (99.8% (se 0.002; 95% CI 0.994 to 1)). This study confirmed the excellent long-term results currently achieved with the ABG II proximally HA-coated monobloc stem.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1610–16.

We reviewed 111 hemispherical Duraloc series-500 acetabular components with a minimum follow-up of 12 years. The mean clinical and radiological follow-up was 13.4 years (12 to 15). A Profile hydroxyapatite-coated anatomical femoral component was used in each case. Six patients had a late dislocation, for whom the polyethylene liner was exchanged. Each acetabular component was well fixed and all femoral components showed signs of bone ingrowth. The mean rate of femoral head penetration was 0.10 mm/year (0.021 to 0.481). The probability of not developing femoral cortical hypertrophy and proximal osteopenia by 12 years was 80.2% (95% confidence interval, 72.7 to 87.6) and 77.5% (95% confidence interval, 69.7 to 85.2), respectively. Despite these good clinical results, further follow-up is needed to determine whether these prostheses will loosen with time.