In this review, we discuss the evidence for patients returning to sport after hip arthroplasty. This includes the choices regarding level of sporting activity and revision or complications, the type of implant, fixation and techniques of implantation, and how these choices relate to health economics. It is apparent that despite its success over six decades, hip arthroplasty has now evolved to accommodate and support ever-increasing patient demands and may therefore face new challenges. Cite this article:
Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface. It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation.
There is a trend towards the use of double-bundle techniques for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This has not been substantiated scientifically. The functional outcome of these techniques is equivalent to that of single-bundle methods. The main advantage of a double-bundle rather than a single-bundle reconstruction should be a better rotational stability, but the validity and accuracy of systems for the measurement of rotational stability have not been confirmed. Despite the enthusiasm of surgeons for the double-bundle technique, reconstruction with a single-bundle should remain the standard method for managing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament until strong evidence in favour of the use of the double-bundle method is available.
Failure of fixation is a common problem in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures around the hip. The reinforcement of bone stock or of fixation of the implant may be a solution. Our study assesses the existing evidence for the use of bone substitutes in the management of these fractures in osteoporotic patients. Relevant publications were retrieved through Medline research and further scrutinised. Of 411 studies identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 12 experimental and ten clinical reports. The clinical studies were evaluated with regard to their level of evidence. Only four were prospective and randomised. Polymethylmethacrylate and calcium-phosphate cements increased the primary stability of the implant-bone construct in all experimental and clinical studies, although there was considerable variation in the design of the studies. In randomised, controlled studies, augmentation of intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur with calcium-phosphate cement was associated with poor long-term results. There was a lack of data on the long-term outcome for trochanteric fractures. Because there were only a few, randomised, controlled studies, there is currently poor evidence for the use of bone cement in the treatment of fractures of the hip.
