Aims

We assessed the difference in hospital based and early clinical outcomes between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA).

In the management of a pelvic fracture prompt recognition of an unstable fracture pattern is important in reducing mortality and morbidity. It is believed that a fracture of the transverse process of L5 is a predictor of pelvic fracture instability. However, there is little evidence in the literature to support this view. The aim of this study was to determine whether a fracture of the transverse process of L5 is a reliable predictor of pelvic fracture instability.

We reviewed our hospital trauma database and identified 80 patients who sustained a pelvic fracture between 2006 and 2010. There were 32 women and 48 men with a mean age of 40 years (10 to 96). Most patients were injured in a road traffic accident or as a result of a fall from a height. A total of 41 patients (51%) had associated injuries. The pelvic fractures were categorised according to the Burgess and Young classification. There were 45 stable and 35 unstable fractures. An associated fracture of the transverse process of L5 was present in 17 patients; 14 (40%) of whom had an unstable fracture pattern. The odds ratio for an unstable fracture of the pelvis in the presence of a fracture of the transverse process of L5 was 9.3 and the relative risk was 2.5.

A fracture of the transverse process of L5 in the presence of a pelvic fracture is associated with an increased risk of instability of the pelvic fracture. Its presence should alert the attending staff to this possibility.

We present a case of late dislocation of the hip in a 30-month-old girl. Her hip was clinically stable at birth and an ultrasound scan at six weeks was normal. She had no additional risk factors for developmental dysplasia. She underwent anterior open reduction with a femoral osteotomy.

Between January 2000 and December 2007, 31 patients 90 years of age or older underwent total hip replacement at our hospital. Their data were collected prospectively. The rate of major medical complications was 9%. The surgical re-operation rate was 3%. The requirement for blood transfusion was 71% which was much higher than for younger patients. The 30-day, one-year and current mortality figures were 6.4% (2 of 31), 9.6% (3 of 31) and 55% (17 of 31), respectively, with a mean follow-up for the 14 surviving patients of six years. Cox’s regression analysis revealed no significant independent predictors of mortality. Only 52% of patients returned immediately to their normal abode, with 45% requiring a prolonged period of rehabilitation.

This is the first series to assess survival five years after total hip replacement for patients in their 90th year and beyond. Hip replacement in the extreme elderly should not be discounted on the grounds of age alone, although the complication rate exceeds that for younger patients. It can be anticipated that almost half of the patients will survive five years after surgery.

We present a prospective review of the two-year functional outcome of 37 Avon patellofemoral joint replacements carried out in 29 patients with a mean age of 66 years (30 to 82) between October 2002 and March 2007. No patients were lost to follow-up. This is the first independent assessment of this prosthesis using both subjective and objective analysis of outcome. At two years the median Oxford knee score was 39 (interquartile range 32 to 44), the median American Knee Society objective score was 95 (interquartile range 90 to 100), the median American Knee Society functional score was 85 (interquartile range 60 to 100), and the median Melbourne Knee score was 28 (interquartile range 21 to 30). Two patients underwent further surgery. Only one patient reported an unsatisfactory outcome.

We conclude that the promising early results observed by the designing centre are reproducible and provide further support for the role of patellofemoral joint replacement.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone.

We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.