Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Aims. Hip arthroplasty does not always restore normal anatomy. This is due to inaccurate surgery or lack of stem sizes. We evaluated the aptitude of four total hip arthroplasty systems to restore an anatomical and medialized hip rotation centre. Methods. Using 3D templating software in 49 CT scans of non-deformed femora, we virtually implanted: 1) small uncemented calcar-guided stems with two offset options (Optimys, Mathys), 2) uncemented straight stems with two offset options (Summit, DePuy Synthes), 3) cemented undersized stems (Exeter philosophy) with three offset options (CPT, ZimmerBiomet), and 4) cemented line-to-line stems (Kerboul philosophy) with proportional offsets (Centris, Mathys). We measured the distance between the templated and the anatomical and 5 mm medialized hip rotation centre. Results. Both rotation centres could be restored within 5 mm in 94% and 92% of cases, respectively. The cemented undersized stem performed best, combining freedom of stem positioning and a large offset range. The uncemented straight stem performed well because of its large and well-chosen offset range, and despite the need for cortical bone contact limiting stem positioning. The cemented line-to-line stem performed less well due to a small range of sizes and offsets. The uncemented calcar-guided stem performed worst, despite 24 sizes and a large and well-chosen offset range. This was attributed to the calcar curvature restricting the stem insertion depth along the femoral axis. Conclusion. In the majority of non-deformed femora, leg length, offset, and anteversion can be restored accurately with non-modular stems during 3D templating. Failure to restore hip biomechanics is mostly due to surgical inaccuracy. Small calcar guided stems offer no advantage to restore hip biomechanics compared to more traditional designs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):476–485

Aims. Excellent outcomes have been reported following CT-based robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) compared with manual THA; however, its superiority over CT-based navigation THA (nTHA) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine whether a CT-based robotic arm-assisted system helps surgeons perform accurate cup placement, minimizes leg length, and offsets discrepancies more than a CT-based navigation system. Methods. We studied 60 hips from 54 patients who underwent rTHA between April 2021 and August 2023, and 45 hips from 44 patients who underwent nTHA between January 2020 and March 2021 with the same target cup orientation at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Ozu Memorial Hospital, Japan. After propensity score matching, each group had 37 hips. Postoperative acetabular component position and orientation were measured using the planning module of the CT-based navigation system. Postoperative leg length and offset discrepancies were evaluated using postoperative CT in patients who have unilateral hip osteoarthritis. Results. The absolute differences in radiological inclination (RI) and radiological anteversion (RA) from the target were significantly smaller in rTHA (RI 1.2° (SD 1.2°), RA 1.4° (SD 1.2°)) than in nTHA (RI 2.7° (SD 1.9°), RA 3.0° (SD 2.6°)) (p = 0.005 for RI, p = 0.002 for RA). The absolute distance of the target’s postoperative centre of rotation was significantly smaller in the mediolateral (ML) and superoinferior (SI) directions in rTHA (ML 1.1 mm (SD 0.8), SI 1.3 mm (SD 0.5)) than in nTHA (ML 1.9 mm (SD 0.9), SI 1.6 mm (SD 0.9)) (p = 0.002 for ML, p = 0.042 for SI). Absolute leg length and absolute discrepancies in the acetabular, femoral, and global offsets were significantly lower in the rTHA group than in the nTHA group (p = 0.042, p = 0.004, p = 0.003, and p = 0.010, respectively). In addition, the percentage of hips significantly differed with an absolute global offset discrepancy of ≤ 5 mm (p < 0.001). Conclusion. rTHA is more accurate in cup orientation and position than nTHA, effectively reducing postoperative leg length and offset discrepancy. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;6(1):3–11

The purpose of this study was to describe the radiological characteristics of a previously unreported finding: posterior iliac offset at the sacroiliac joint and to assess its association with pelvic instability as measured by initial displacement and early implant loosening or failure. Radiographs from 42 consecutive patients with a mean age of 42 years (18 to 77; 38 men, four women) and mean follow-up of 38 months (3 to 96) with Anteroposterior Compression II injuries, were retrospectively reviewed. Standardised measurements were recorded for the extent of any diastasis of the pubic symphysis, widening of the sacroiliac joint, static vertical ramus offset and a novel measurement (posterior offset of the ilium at the sacroiliac joint identified on axial CT scan). Pelvic fractures with posterior iliac offset exhibited greater levels of initial displacement of the anterior pelvis (anterior sacroiliac widening, pubic symphysis diastasis and static vertical ramus offset, p < 0.001,0.034 and 0.028, respectively). Pelvic fractures with posterior ilium offset also demonstrated higher rates of implant loosening regardless of fixation method (p = 0.05). Posterior offset of the ilium was found to be a reliable and reproducible measurement with substantial inter-observer agreement (kappa = 0.70). Posterior offset of the ilium on axial CT scan is associated with greater levels of initial pelvic displacement and early implant loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1535–9

Because the femoral head/neck junction is preserved in hip resurfacing, patients may be at greater risk of impingement, leading to abnormal wear patterns and pain. We assessed femoral head/neck offset in 63 hips undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and in 56 hips presenting with non-arthritic pain secondary to femoroacetabular impingement. Most hips undergoing resurfacing (57%; 36) had an offset ratio ≤ 0.15 pre-operatively and required greater correction of offset at operation than the rest of the group. In the non-arthritic hips the mean offset ratio was 0.137 (0.04 to 0.23), with the offset ratio correlating negatively to an increasing α angle. An offset ratio ≤ 0.15 had a 9.5-fold increased relative risk of having an α angle ≥ 50.5°. Most hips undergoing resurfacing have an abnormal femoral head/neck offset, which is best assessed in the sagittal plane

Aims. Traditionally, total hip arthroplasty (THA) templating has been performed on anteroposterior (AP) pelvis radiographs. Recently, additional AP hip radiographs have been recommended for accurate measurement of the femoral offset (FO). To verify this claim, this study aimed to establish quantitative data of the measurement error of the FO in relation to leg position and X-ray source position using a newly developed geometric model and clinical data. Methods. We analyzed the FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs in a prospective consecutive series of 55 patients undergoing unilateral primary THA for hip osteoarthritis. To determine sample size, a power analysis was performed. Patients’ position and X-ray beam setting followed a standardized protocol to achieve reproducible projections. All images were calibrated with the KingMark calibration system. In addition, a geometric model was created to evaluate both the effects of leg position (rotation and abduction/adduction) and the effects of X-ray source position on FO measurement. Results. The mean FOs measured on AP hip and pelvis radiographs were 38.0 mm (SD 6.4) and 36.6 mm (SD 6.3) (p < 0.001), respectively. Radiological view had a smaller effect on FO measurement than inaccurate leg positioning. The model showed a non-linear relationship between projected FO and femoral neck orientation; at 30° external neck rotation (with reference to the detector plane), a true FO of 40 mm was underestimated by up to 20% (7.8 mm). With a neutral to mild external neck rotation (≤ 15°), the underestimation was less than 7% (2.7 mm). The effect of abduction and adduction was negligible. Conclusion. For routine THA templating, an AP pelvis radiograph remains the gold standard. Only patients with femoral neck malrotation > 15° on the AP pelvis view, e.g. due to external rotation contracture, should receive further imaging. Options include an additional AP hip view with elevation of the entire affected hip to align the femoral neck more parallel to the detector, or a CT scan in more severe cases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):795–803

Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired t-tests. There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA

Several factors have been implicated in unsatisfactory results after total hip replacement (THR). We examined whether femoral offset, as measured on digitised post-operative radiographs, was associated with pain after THR. The routine post-operative radiographs of 362 patients (230 women and 132 men, mean age 70.0 years (35.2 to 90.5)) who received primary unilateral THRs of varying designs were measured after calibration. The femoral offset was calculated using the known dimensions of the implants to control for femoral rotation. Femoral offset was categorised into three groups: normal offset (within 5 mm of the height-adjusted femoral offset), low offset and high offset. We determined the associations to the absolute final score and the improvement in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores at three, six, 12 and 24 months, adjusting for confounding variables. The amount of femoral offset was associated with the mean WOMAC pain subscale score at all points of follow-up, with the low-offset group reporting less WOMAC pain than the normal or high-offset groups (six months: 7.01 (. sd. 11.69) vs 12.26 (. sd. 15.10) vs 13.10 (. sd. 16.20), p = 0.006; 12 months: 6.55 (. sd. 11.09) vs 9.73 (. sd. 13.76) vs 13.46 (. sd. 18.39), p = 0.010; 24 months: 5.84 (. sd. 10.23) vs 9.60 (. sd. 14.43) vs 13.12 (. sd. 17.43), p = 0.004). When adjusting for confounding variables, including age and gender, the greatest improvement was seen in the low-offset group, with the normal-offset group demonstrating more improvement than the high-offset group. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:36–42

In a prospective study between 2000 and 2005, 22 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder had a total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard five-pegged glenoid component, 12 with non-offset humeral head and ten with offset humeral head components. Over a period of 24 months the relative movement of the glenoid component with respect to the scapula was measured using radiostereometric analysis. Nine glenoids needed reaming for erosion. There was a significant increase in rotation about all three axes with time (p < 0.001), the largest occurring about the longitudinal axis (anteversion-retroversion), with mean values of 3.8° and 1.9° for the non-offset and offset humeral head eroded subgroups, respectively. There was also a significant difference in rotation about the anteversion-retroversion axis (p = 0.01) and the varus-valgus (p < 0.001) z-axis between the two groups. The offset humeral head group reached a plateau at early follow-up with rotation about the z-axis, whereas the mean of the non-offset humeral head group at 24 months was three times greater than that of the offset group accounting for the highly significant difference between them

Objectives. Preservation of posterior condylar offset (PCO) has been shown to correlate with improved functional results after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Whether this is also the case for revision TKA, remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the independent effect of PCO on early functional outcome after revision TKA. Methods. A total of 107 consecutive aseptic revision TKAs were performed by a single surgeon during an eight-year period. The mean age was 69.4 years (39 to 85) and there were 59 female patients and 48 male patients. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Short-form (SF)-12 score were assessed pre-operatively and one year post-operatively. Patient satisfaction was also assessed at one year. Joint line and PCO were assessed radiographically at one year. Results. There was a significant improvement in the OKS (10.6 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.8 to 12.3) and the SF-12 physical component score (5.9, 95% CI 4.1 to 7.8). PCO directly correlated with change in OKS (p < 0.001). Linear regression analysis confirmed the independent effect of PCO on the OKS (p < 0.001) and the SF-12 physical score (p = 0.02). The overall rate of satisfaction was 85% and on logistic regression analysis improvement in the OKS (p = 0.002) was a significant predictor of patient satisfaction, which is related to PCO; although this was not independently associated with satisfaction. Conclusion. Preservation of PCO should be a major consideration when undertaking revision TKA. The option of increasing PCO to balance the flexion gap while maintaining the joint line should be assessed intra-operatively. Cite this article: N. D. Clement, D. J. MacDonald, D. F. Hamilton, R. Burnett. Posterior condylar offset is an independent predictor of functional outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:172–178. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.63.BJR-2015-0021.R1

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to identify any difference in femoral offset as measured on pre-operative anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the pelvis, AP radiographs of the hip and corresponding CT scans in a consecutive series of 100 patients with primary end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip (43 men and 57 women with a mean age of 61 years (45 to 74) and a mean body mass index of 28 kg/m. 2. (20 to 45)). Patients were positioned according to a standardised protocol to achieve reproducible projection and all images were calibrated. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was evaluated and agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. In the entire cohort, the mean femoral offset was 39.0 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 40.6) on radiographs of the pelvis, 44.0 mm (95% CI 42.4 to 45.6) on radiographs of the hip and 44.7 mm (95% CI 43.5 to 45.9) on CT scans. AP radiographs of the pelvis underestimated femoral offset by 13% when compared with CT (p < 0.001). No difference in mean femoral offset was seen between AP radiographs of the hip and CT (p = 0.191). Our results suggest that femoral offset is significantly underestimated on AP radiographs of the pelvis but can be reliably and accurately assessed on AP radiographs of the hip in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis. We, therefore, recommend that additional AP radiographs of the hip are obtained routinely for the pre-operative assessment of femoral offset when templating before total hip replacement

We have studied the concept of posterior condylar offset and the importance of its restoration on the maximum range of knee flexion after posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining total knee replacement (TKR). We measured the difference in the posterior condylar offset before and one year after operation in 69 patients who had undergone a primary cruciate-sacrificing mobile bearing TKR by one surgeon using the same implant and a standardised operating technique. In all the patients true pre- and post-operative lateral radiographs had been taken. The mean pre- and post-operative posterior condylar offset was 25.9 mm (21 to 35) and 26.9 mm (21 to 34), respectively. The mean difference in posterior condylar offset was + 1 mm (−6 to +5). The mean pre-operative knee flexion was 111° (62° to 146°) and at one year postoperatively, it was 107° (51° to 137°). There was no statistical correlation between the change in knee flexion and the difference in the posterior condylar offset after TKR (Pearson correlation coefficient r = −0.06, p = 0.69)

Objectives. Posterior condylar offset (PCO) and posterior tibial slope (PTS) are critical factors in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A computational simulation was performed to evaluate the biomechanical effect of PCO and PTS on cruciate retaining TKA. Methods. We generated a subject-specific computational model followed by the development of ± 1 mm, ± 2 mm and ± 3 mm PCO models in the posterior direction, and -3°, 0°, 3° and 6° PTS models with each of the PCO models. Using a validated finite element (FE) model, we investigated the influence of the changes in PCO and PTS on the contact stress in the patellar button and the forces on the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), patellar tendon and quadriceps muscles under the deep knee-bend loading conditions. Results. Contact stress on the patellar button increased and decreased as PCO translated to the anterior and posterior directions, respectively. In addition, contact stress on the patellar button decreased as PTS increased. These trends were consistent in the FE models with altered PCO. Higher quadriceps muscle and patellar tendon force are required as PCO translated in the anterior direction with an equivalent flexion angle. However, as PTS increased, quadriceps muscle and patellar tendon force reduced in each PCO condition. The forces exerted on the PCL increased as PCO translated to the posterior direction and decreased as PTS increased. Conclusion. The change in PCO alternatively provided positive and negative biomechanical effects, but it led to a reduction in a negative biomechanical effect as PTS increased. Cite this article: K-T. Kang, Y-G. Koh, J. Son, O-R. Kwon, J-S. Lee, S. K. Kwon. A computational simulation study to determine the biomechanical influence of posterior condylar offset and tibial slope in cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:69–78. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0143.R1

Aims

Precise implant positioning, tailored to individual spinopelvic biomechanics and phenotype, is paramount for stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a few studies on instability prediction, there is a notable gap in research utilizing artificial intelligence (AI). The objective of our pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing an AI algorithm tailored to individual spinopelvic mechanics and patient phenotype for predicting impingement.

At a minimum of one year after operation, we studied 64 patients with 86 total hip arthroplasties (THA) by standard anteroposterior hip and pelvic radiographs and measurement of range of motion and of isometric abduction strength. The femoral offset correlated positively with the range of abduction (p = 0.046). Abduction strength correlated positively with both femoral offset (p = 0.0001) and the length of the abductor lever arm (p = 0.005). Using multiple regression, abduction strength correlated with height (p = 0.017), gender (p = 0.0005), range of flexion (p = 0.047) and the abductor lever arm (p = 0.060). Our findings suggest that greater femoral offset after THA allows both an increased range of abduction and greater abductor strength

We studied wear in the ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene offset bore socket in 54 hips which had had Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. At an average follow-up of 8.1 years, the mean penetration rate was 0.04 mm per year. Correlation between the depth of socket penetration and the incidence of socket migration was confirmed, but socket migration occurred with lower penetration than had been previously reported

Aims. Registry studies on modified acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner designs are limited. We investigated the influence of standard and modified PE acetabular liner designs on the revision rate for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We analyzed 151,096 primary cementless THAs from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between November 2012 and November 2020. Cumulative incidence of revision for mechanical complications for standard and four modified PE liners (lipped, offset, angulated/offset, and angulated) was determined using competing risk analysis at one and seven years. Confounders were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results. Median follow-up was 868 days (interquartile range 418 to 1,364). The offset liner design reduced the risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.92)), while the angulated/offset liner increased the risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.36)). The cumulative incidence of revision was lowest for the offset liner at one and seven years (1.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) and 1.8% (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0)). No difference was found between standard, lipped, and angulated liner designs. Higher age at index primary THA and an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 increased the revision risk in the first year after surgery. Implantation of a higher proportion of a single design of liner in a hospital reduced revision risk slightly but significantly (p = 0.001). Conclusion. The use of standard acetabular component liners remains a good choice in primary uncemented THA, as most modified liner designs were not associated with a reduced risk of revision for mechanical failure. Offset liner designs were found to be beneficial and angulated/offset liner designs were associated with higher risks of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):801–810

Aims. The Exeter femoral stem has a cemented, polished taper-slip design, and an excellent track record. The current range includes short-length options for various offsets, but less is known about the performance of these stems. The aim of this study was to compare the survival of short-length stems with standard-length Exeter stems. Methods. A systematic review of all studies reporting the use of short-length Exeter stems in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) was undertaken. Survival data, the indication for revision, and patient-reported outcomes were gathered from observational and randomized studies. Studies based on registry data were analyzed separately. Results. The review included nine studies which covered a total of 2,190 short stems. The mean follow-up was 6.4 years (2 to 12) with an all-cause survival of 95.4%. When revisions due to aseptic acetabular loosening were excluded, the survival was 97.7%. Four stems fractured (0.18%). The mean Oxford Hip Score improved from 18.29 (1.33 to 21.6) preoperatively to 41.59 (32.9 to 43.4) at final follow-up. Three studies used data from national registries. A total of 25,895 short stems (offset ≤ 35.5 mm) were used compared with 336,218 standard-length stems. In these studies, short stems had a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause survival of 1.19 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.43) with a rate of revision per 1,000 component-years of 0.037 compared with 0.035 for standard-length stems. One study from the New Zealand Joint Registry divided short stems into standard and small offset groups. Standard offset short stems (≥ 37.5 mm) had a 0.84 HR (95% CI 0.38 to 1.88) while small offset short stems (≤ 35.5 mm) had a 1.6 HR compared with standard stems (95% CI 1.3 to 1.98). Conclusion. Short Exeter stems perform well and are a safe femoral component in primary THA, according to the current literature. There does not appear to be an increased risk of implant fracture associated with these stems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):27–33

Aims. To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening. Methods. The National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset was analyzed for primary THAs performed between 2003 and 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were included. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using log-binomial regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking, and prosthetic head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death. Results. The distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW 81.2%; hooded 18.7%; and offset reorientating 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.5%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.4%) were for instability and 838 (0.4%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.31 (p < 0.001) and 4.12 (p = 0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.65 (p < 0.001) in the hooded group and 13.61 (p < 0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first three months. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision after cemented THA for instability and for loosening when a hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to a LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1669–1677