Primary uncemented femoral stems reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 2005 were included in this prospective observational study. There were 11 516 hips (9679 patients) and 14 different designs of stem. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and Cox regression were used to analyse the data.

With aseptic loosening as the end-point, all currently used designs performed excellently with survival of 96% to 100% at ten years. With the end-point as stem revision for any cause, the long-term results of the different designs varied from poor to excellent, with survival at 15 years ranging between 29% and 97%. Follow-up for longer than seven years was needed to identify some of the poorly-performing designs. There were differences between the stems; the Corail, used in 5456 hips, was the most frequently used stem with a survival of 97% at 15 years. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of revision of × 1.3 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.52), but age and diagnosis had no influence on the results. Overall, modern uncemented femoral stems performed well.

Moderate differences in survival between well-performing stems should be interpreted with caution since the differences may be caused by factors other than the stem itself.

We present the results for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties with no previous infection in the hip, which were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2003. The ten-year failure rate for revised prostheses was 26% (95% CI 25 to 26). Cox regression analyses were undertaken separately for acetabular and femoral revision components. Cemented revision components without allograft was the reference category. For acetabular components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions both with (relative risk (RR) = 0.66; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99) and without (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61) allograft. For femoral components, we found a significantly reduced risk of failure for uncemented revisions, both with (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46) and without (RR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46) unimpacted allograft. This reduced risk of failure also applied to cemented revision components with allograft (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84) and with impaction bone grafting (RR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62). Revision prostheses have generally inferior results when compared with primary prostheses. Recementation without allograft, and uncemented revision with bone impaction, were associated with worse results than the other revision techniques which we studied.

Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we have the assessed survival of 17 323 primary Charnley hip prostheses in patients with osteoarthritis based upon the type of cement used for the fixation of the implant.

Overall, 9.2% had been revised after follow-up for ten years; 71% of the failures involved aseptic loosening of the femoral component. We observed significantly increased rates of failure for prostheses inserted with CMW1 and CMW3 cements. Using implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos cement as the reference, the adjusted Cox regression failure rate ratios were 1.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.4) for implants cemented with plain Palacos, 1.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6) for Simplex, 2.1 (95% 1.5 to 2.9) for gentamicin-containing CMW1, 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.4) for plain CMW1 and 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9) for implants fixed with CMW3 cement. The adjusted failure rate at ten years varied from 5.9% for implants fixed with gentamicin-containing Palacos to 17% for those fixed with CMW3.

We studied the rates of revision for 53 698 primary total hip replacements (THRs) in nine different groups of disease. Factors which have previously been shown to be associated with increased risk of revision, such as male gender, young age, or certain types of uncemented prosthesis, showed important differences between the diagnostic groups. Without adjustment for these factors we observed an increased risk of revision in patients with paediatric hip diseases and in a small heterogeneous ‘other’ group, compared with patients with primary osteoarthritis. Most differences were reduced or disappeared when an adjustment for the prognostic factors was made. After adjustment, an increased relative risk (RR) of revision compared with primary osteoarthritis was seen in hips with complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.3, p = 0.0005), in hips with congenital dislocation (RR = 1.3, p = 0.03), and in the heterogenous ‘other’ group. The analyses were also undertaken in a more homogenous subgroup of 16 217 patients which had a Charnley prosthesis implanted with high-viscosity cement. The only difference in this group was an increased risk for revision in patients who had undergone THR for complications after fracture of the femoral neck (RR = 1.5, p = 0.0005).

THR for diagnoses seen mainly among young patients had a good prognosis, but they had more often received inferior uncemented implants. If a cemented Charnley prosthesis is used, the type of disease leading to THR seems in most cases to have only a minor influence on the survival of the prosthesis.

We have assessed the effect of different regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis on the survival of total hip implants, comparing antibiotics administered both systemically and in the bone cement, systemically only, in the bone cement only and with no antibiotics given.

We studied 10 905 primary cemented total hip replacements, performed for osteoarthritis of the hip and reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 1995. Cox-estimated failure-rate ratios (FRR) are presented with adjustment for gender, age, the brand of cement, the prosthesis, the type of operating theatre and the operating time.

For revisions performed for infection (39 operations), the lowest rate of revision was found among patients receiving antibiotic-containing cement plus systemic antibiotics (n = 5804). The revision rate for the 4586 patients receiving systemic antibiotics only was 4.3 times greater (95% CI 1.7 to 11.0, p = 0.001); in 239 with antibiotics in the bone cement only it was 6.3 times greater (CI 1.6 to 25.0, p = 0.003); and in the 276 who did not receive antibiotics it was by 11.5 times greater (CI 2.1 to 63.0, p = 0.002). Adjustment for the total amount of systemic antibiotic administered did not change the results. We also observed an increased revision rate for aseptic loosening (109 operations) comparing the systemic-only (FRR = 1.8, CI 1.1 to 2.9, p = 0.01) and the cement-only regimes (FRR = 2.6, CI 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.02) with the combined dosage.

Our findings show that systemic antibiotics combined with antibiotic-containing bone cement led to fewer revisions than the other methods.