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.

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement and to treat it, the causes must first be understood. Patient factors include age greater than 70 years, medical comorbidities, female gender, ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors, and patient education. Surgeon factors include the annual quantity of procedures and experience, the surgical approach, adequate restoration of femoral offset and leg length, component position, and soft-tissue or bony impingement. Implant factors include the design of the head and neck region, and so-called skirts on longer neck lengths. There should be offset choices available in order to restore soft-tissue tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed may result in impingement and dislocation. Late dislocation may result from polyethylene wear, soft-tissue destruction, trochanteric or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection. Understanding the causes of hip dislocation facilitates prevention in a majority of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification of patients with a high offset in whom inadequate restoration of offset will reduce soft-tissue tension and abductor efficiency. Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement. Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur early, and are preventable with proper instructions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:67–9.

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.

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 August 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether cemented hip replacement might be bad for your health; highly cross-linked polyethylene; iHOT-33 - a new hip outcome measure; hamstring injuries; total hip replacement; stemmed metal-on-metal THR; bipolar hemiarthroplasty, neuromuscular disease and dislocation; the high risk of secondary hemiarthroplasty; and whether we have to repair the labrum after all?

Large-head metal-on-metal total hip replacement has a failure rate of almost 8% at five years, three times the revision rate of conventional hip replacement. Unexplained pain remains a feature of this type of arthroplasty.

All designs of the femoral component of large-head metal-on-metal total hip replacements share a unique characteristic: a subtended angle of 120° defining the proportion of a sphere that the head represents. Using MRI, we measured the contact area of the iliopsoas tendon on the femoral head in sagittal reconstruction of 20 hips of patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. We also measured the articular extent of the femoral head on 40 normal hips and ten with cam-type deformities. Finally, we performed virtual hip resurfacing on normal and cam-type hips, avoiding overhang of the metal rim inferomedially.

The articular surface of the femoral head has a subtended angle of 120° anteriorly and posteriorly, but only 100° medially. Virtual surgery in a normally shaped femoral head showed a 20° skirt of metal protruding medially where iliopsoas articulates.

The excessive extent of the large-diameter femoral components may cause iliopsoas impingement independently of the acetabular component. This may be the cause of postoperative pain with these implants.

The inherent challenges of total hip replacement (THR) in children include the choice of implant for the often atypical anatomical morphology, its fixation to an immature growing skeleton and the bearing surface employed to achieve a successful long-term result. We report the medium-term results of 52 consecutive uncemented THRs undertaken in 35 paediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The mean age at the time of surgery was 14.4 years (10 to 16). The median follow-up was 10.5 years (6 to 15). During the study period 13 THRs underwent revision surgery. With revision as an endpoint, subgroup analysis revealed 100% survival of the 23 ceramic-on-ceramic THRs and 55% (16 of 29) of the metal- or ceramic-on-polyethylene. This resulted in 94% (95% CI 77.8 to 98.4) survivorship of the femoral component and 62% (95% CI 41.0 to 78.0) of the acetabular component. Revision of the acetabular component for wear and osteolysis were the most common reasons for failure accounting for 11 of the 13 revisions.

The success seen in patients with a ceramic-on-ceramic articulation seems to indicate that this implant strategy has the potential to make a major difference to the long-term outcome in this difficult group of patients.

Squeaking arising from a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip replacement (THR) may cause patient concern and in some cases causes patients to seek revision surgery. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the incidence of squeaking and the incidence of revision surgery for squeaking. A total of 43 studies including 16 828 CoC THR that reported squeaking, or revision for squeaking, were entered into the analysis. The incidence of squeaking was 4.2% and the incidence of revision for squeaking was 0.2%. The incidence of squeaking in patients receiving the Accolade femoral stem was 8.3%, and the incidence of revision for squeaking in these patients was 1.3%.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:181–7.

A modular femoral head–neck junction has practical advantages in total hip replacement. Taper fretting and corrosion have so far been an infrequent cause of revision. The role of design and manufacturing variables continues to be debated. Over the past decade several changes in technology and clinical practice might result in an increase in clinically significant taper fretting and corrosion. Those factors include an increased usage of large diameter (36 mm) heads, reduced femoral neck and taper dimensions, greater variability in taper assembly with smaller incision surgery, and higher taper stresses due to increased patient weight and/or physical activity. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of taper assembly compared with design, manufacturing and other implant variables.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:3–6.

We report our experience with glenohumeral arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for epilepsy-related recurrent shoulder instability. A total of six patients with epilepsy underwent shoulder fusion for recurrent instability and were followed up for a mean of 39 months (12 to 79). The mean age at the time of surgery was 31 years (22 to 38). Arthrodesis was performed after a mean of four previous stabilisation attempts (0 to 11) in all but one patient in whom the procedure was used as a primary treatment. All patients achieved bony union, with a mean time to fusion of 2.8 months (2 to 7). There were no cases of re-dislocation. One revision was undertaken for loosening of the metalwork, and then healed satisfactorily. An increase was noted in the mean subjective shoulder value, which improved from 37 (5 to 50) pre-operatively to 42 (20 to 70) post-operatively although it decreased in two patients. The mean Oxford shoulder instability score improved from 13 pre-operatively (7 to 21) to 24 post-operatively (13 to 36). In our series, glenohumeral arthrodesis eliminated recurrent instability and improved functional outcome. Fusion surgery should therefore be considered in this patient population. However, since the majority of patients are young and active, they should be comprehensively counselled pre-operatively given the functional deficit that results from the procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1525–9.

Persistent groin pain after seemingly successful total hip replacement (THR) appears to have become more common. Recent studies have indicated a high incidence after metal-on-polyethylene and metal-on-metal conventional THR and it has been documented in up to 18% of patients after metal-on-metal resurfacing. There are many causes, including acetabular loosening, stress fracture, and iliopsoas tendonitis and impingement. The evaluation of this problem requires a careful history and examination, plain radiographs and an algorithmic approach to special diagnostic imaging and tests. Non-operative treatment is not usually successful. Specific operative treatment depending on the cause of the pain usually involves revision of the acetabular component, iliopsoas tenotomy or other procedures, and is usually successful. Here, an appropriate algorithm is described.

Instability after arthroplasty of the shoulder is difficult to correct surgically. Soft-tissue procedures and revision surgery using unconstrained anatomical components are associated with a high rate of failure. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of revision of an unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse design prosthesis. Between 2004 and 2007, 33 unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasties were revised to a reverse design. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (53 to 86) and their mean follow-up was 42 months (25 to 71). The mean time to revision was 26 months (4 to 164). Pain scores improved significantly (pre-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) of 7.2 (sd 1.6); most recent VAS 2.2 (sd 1.9); p = 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in mean active forward elevation from 40.2° (sd 27.3) to 97.0° (sd 36.2) (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in internal (p = 0.93) or external rotation (p = 0.40). Radiological findings included notching in five shoulders (15%) and heterotopic ossification of the inferior capsular region in three (9%). At the last follow-up 31 shoulders (94%) were stable. The remaining two shoulders dislocated at 2.5 weeks and three months post-operatively, respectively. According to the Neer rating system, there were 13 excellent (40%), ten satisfactory (30%) and ten unsatisfactory results (30%). Revision of hemiarthroplasty or anatomical total shoulder replacement for instability using a reverse design prosthesis gives good short-term results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:668–72.

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.

Following the recall of modular neck hip stems in July 2012, research into femoral modularity will intensify over the next few years. This review aims to provide surgeons with an up-to-date summary of the clinically relevant evidence. The development of femoral modularity, and a classification system, is described. The theoretical rationale for modularity is summarised and the clinical outcomes are explored. The review also examines the clinically relevant problems reported following the use of femoral stems with a modular neck.

Joint replacement registries in the United Kingdom and Australia have provided data on the failure rates of modular devices but cannot identify the mechanism of failure. This information is needed to determine whether modular neck femoral stems will be used in the future, and how we should monitor patients who already have them implanted.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1011–21.

Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty gained significant favor in the first decade of the millennium. However, the past several years have seen increasing reports of failure, pseudotumor and other adverse reactions. This study presents the results of a single center’s 15-year experience with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty as strong evidence that metal-on-metal is going, going, gone.

The practice of removing a well-fixed cementless femoral component is associated with high morbidity. Ceramic bearing couples are low wearing and their use minimises the risk of subsequent further revision due to the production of wear debris. A total of 165 revision hip replacements were performed, in which a polyethylene-lined acetabular component was revised to a new acetabular component with a ceramic liner, while retaining the well-fixed femoral component. A titanium sleeve was placed over the used femoral trunnion, to which a ceramic head was added. There were 100 alumina and 65 Delta bearing couples inserted.

The mean Harris hip score improved significantly from 71.3 (9.0 to 100.0) pre-operatively to 91.0 (41.0 to 100.0) at a mean follow up of 4.8 years (2.1 to 12.5) (p < 0.001). No patients reported squeaking of the hip.

There were two fractures of the ceramic head, both in alumina bearings. No liners were seen to fracture. No fractures were observed in components made of Delta ceramic. At 8.3 years post-operatively the survival with any cause of failure as the endpoint was 96.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.7 to 99.3) for the acetabular component and 94.0% (95% CI 82.1 to 98.4) for the femoral component.

The technique of revising the acetabular component in the presence of a well-fixed femoral component with a ceramic head placed on a titanium sleeve over the used trunnion is a useful adjunct in revision hip practice. The use of Delta ceramic is recommended.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:333–8.

Noise generation has been reported with ceramic-on-ceramic articulations in total hip replacement (THR). This study evaluated 208 consecutive Delta Motion THRs at a mean follow-up of 21 months (12 to 35). There were 141 women and 67 men with a mean age of 59 years (22 to 84). Patients were reviewed clinically and radiologically, and the incidence of noise was determined using a newly described assessment method. Noise production was examined against range of movement, ligamentous laxity, patient-reported outcome scores, activity level and orientation of the acetabular component. There were 143 silent hips (69%), 22 (11%) with noises other than squeaking, 17 (8%) with unreproducible squeaking and 26 (13%) with reproducible squeaking. Hips with reproducible squeaking had a greater mean range of movement (p < 0.001) and mean ligament laxity (p = 0.004), smaller median head size (p = 0.01) and decreased mean acetabular component inclination (p = 0.02) and anteversion angle (p = 0.02) compared with the other groups. There was no relationship between squeaking and age (p = 0.13), height (p = 0.263), weight (p = 0.333), body mass index (p = 0.643), gender (p = 0.07) or patient outcome score (p = 0.422). There were no revisions during follow-up. Despite the surprisingly high incidence of squeaking, all patients remain satisfied with their hip replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:160–5.