Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

We undertook a multicentre, prospective study of a series of 112 unstable trochanteric fractures in order to evaluate if internal fixation with a sliding screw device combined with augmentation using a calcium phosphate degradable cement (Norian SRS) could improve the clinical, functional and radiological outcome when compared with fractures treated with a sliding screw device alone. Pain, activities of daily living, health status (SF-36), the strength of the hip abductor muscles and radiological outcome were analysed.

Six weeks after surgery, the patients in the augmented group had significantly lower global and functional pain scores (p < 0.003), less pain after walking 50 feet (p < 0.01), and a better return to the activities of daily living (p < 0.05). At follow-up at six weeks and six months, those in the augmented group showed a significant improvement compared with the control group in the SF-36 score. No other significant differences were found between the groups. We conclude that augmentation with calcium phosphate cement in unstable trochanteric fractures provides a modest reduction in pain and a slight improvement in the quality of life during the course of healing when compared with conventional fixation with a sliding screw device alone.