Aims. Dislocation rates are reportedly lower in patients requiring proximal femoral hemiarthroplasty than for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for neoplasia. Without acetabular replacement, pain due to acetabular wear necessitating revision surgery has been described. We aimed to determine whether wear of the native acetabulum following hemiarthroplasty necessitates revision surgery with secondary replacement of the acetabulum after proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for tumour reconstruction. Patients and Methods. We reviewed 100 consecutive PFRs performed between January 2003 and January 2013 without acetabular resurfacing. The procedure was undertaken in 74 patients with metastases, for a primary bone tumour in 20 and for myeloma in six. There were 48 male and 52 female patients, with a mean age of 61.4 years (19 to 85) and median follow-up of two years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5 to 3.7 years). In total, 52 patients presented with a pathological fracture and six presented with failed fixation of a previously instrumented pathological fracture. Results. All patients underwent reconstruction with either a unipolar (n = 64) or bipolar (n = 36) articulation. There were no dislocations and no acetabular resurfacings. Articular wear was graded using the criteria of Baker et al from 0 to 3, where by 0 is normal; grade 1 represents a narrowing of articular cartilage and no bone erosion; grade 2 represents acetabular bone erosion and early migration; and grade 3 represents protrusio acetabuli. Of the 49 patients with radiological follow-up greater than one year, six demonstrated grade 1 acetabular wear and two demonstrated grade 2 acetabular wear. The remainder demonstrated no radiographic evidence of wear. Median medial migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.7) and superior migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.6). No relationship between unipolar versus bipolar articulations and wear was evident. Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty PFRs for tumour reconstruction eliminate joint instability and, in the short to medium term, do not lead to native acetabular wear necessitating later acetabular resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100B:101–8

Aims

Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacements (PFEPRs) are the most common reconstruction option for osseous defects following primary and metastatic tumour resection. This study aimed to compare the rate of implant failure between PFEPRs with monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties and acetabular arthroplasties, and determine the optimum articulation for revision PFEPRs.

Excision of the proximal femur for tumour with prosthetic reconstruction using a bipolar femoral head places a considerable load on the unreplaced acetabulum.

We retrospectively reviewed the changes which occur around the affected hip joint by evaluating the post-operative radiographs of 65 consecutive patients who underwent proximal prosthetic arthroplasty of the femur, and in whom an acetabular component had not been used. There were 37 men and 28 women with a mean age of 57.3 years (17 to 93). Radiological assessment included the extent of degenerative change in the acetabulum, heterotopic ossification, and protrusio acetabuli.

The mean follow-up was 9.1 years (2 to 11.8). Degenerative changes in the acetabulum were seen in three patients (4.6%), Brooker grade 1 or 2 heterotopic ossification in 17 (26%) and protrusion of the prosthetic head in nine (13.8%).

A total of eight patients (12.3%) needed a revision. Five were revised to the same type of prosthesis and three (4.6%) were converted to a total hip arthroplasty.

We conclude that radiological evidence of degenerative change, heterotopic ossification and protrusion occur in a few patients who undergo prosthetic arthroplasty of the proximal femur for tumour. The limited extent of these changes and the lack of associated symptoms do not justify the routine arthroplasty of the acetabulum in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1704–9

We undertook a cemental unipolar proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement in 131 patients with a mean age of 50 years (2 to 84). Primary malignant tumours were present in 54 patients and 67 had metastatic disease. In addition, eight patients had either lymphoma or myeloma and two had non-oncological disorders. The mean follow-up was 27 months (0 to 180). An acetabular revision was required later in 14 patients, 12 of whom had been under the age of 21 years at the time of insertion of their original prosthesis. The risk of acetabular revision in patients over 21 years of age was 8% at five years compared with 36% in those aged under 21 years. All the unipolar hips in this younger age group required revision within 11 years of the initial operation.

We conclude that unipolar replacement should not be used in younger patients and should be avoided in patients with a life expectancy of more than five years.

A retrospective analysis was performed of eight patients with an open triradiate cartilage, who underwent resection for osteosarcoma and reconstruction of the proximal femur with a hemiarthroplasty, in order to identify changes of acetabular development. An analysis of the centre-edge angle, teardrop-to-medial prosthesis distance, superior joint space, teardrop-to-superior prosthesis distance, degree of lateral translation, and arthritic changes, was performed on serial radiographs. The median age at the time of the initial surgery was 11 years (5 to 14).

All patients developed progressive superior and lateral migration of the prosthetic femoral head. Following hemiarthroplasty in the immature acetabulum, the normal deepening and enlargement of the acetabulum is arrested. The degree of superior and lateral migration of the prosthetic head depends on the age at diagnosis and the length of follow-up.