The advent of modular porous metal augments has ushered in a new form of treatment for acetabular bone loss. The function of an augment can be seen as reducing the size of a defect or reconstituting the anterosuperior/posteroinferior columns and/or allowing supplementary fixation. Depending on the function of the augment, the surgeon can decide on the sequence of introduction of the hemispherical shell, before or after the augment. Augments should always, however, be used with cement to form a unit with the acetabular component. Given their versatility, augments also allow the use of a hemispherical shell in a position that restores the centre of rotation and biomechanics of the hip. Progressive shedding or the appearance of metal debris is a particular finding with augments and, with other radiological signs of failure, should be recognized on serial radiographs. Mid- to long-term outcomes in studies reporting the use of augments with hemispherical shells in revision total hip arthroplasty have shown rates of survival of > 90%. However, a higher risk of failure has been reported when augments have been used for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):312–318.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

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

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance is lacking.

An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over 400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to the current literature.

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.