Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful and cost-effective operation, yet debate continues about the optimum fixation philosophy in different age groups. The concept of the 'cementless paradox' and the UK 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative encourage increased use of cemented fixation due to purported lower revision rates, especially in elderly patients, and decreased cost.

In a time of limited resources, the debate continues over which types of hip prosthesis are clinically superior and more cost-effective. Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly need robust economic evidence to understand the full value of the operation, and to aid decision making on the ‘package’ of procedures that are available and to justify their practice beyond traditional clinical preference.

In this paper we explore the current economic debate about the merits of cemented and cementless total hip replacement, an issue that continues to divide the orthopaedic community.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:874–6.

We have analysed the management and clinical outcome of a series of consecutive patients who had a total hip replacement and developed post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The incidence of this infection was 1% over a period of five years. We studied SSI in 15 patients (16 infections) with a mean age of 72.7 years (53 to 81). In all, 12 of the infections occurred early and half of the infections involved the prosthesis, resulting in an increase of 11-fold in the cumulative hospital stay.

Methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus was successfully eradicated in all the patients after a mean follow-up of 53.6 months (25 to 88). Superficial incisional infections resolved after antibiotic therapy alone while deep infections required multiple operative debridements. Attempted retention of the implant in early organ space infections was successful in only one of five patients. Only three patients with implant-level infections obtained a pain-free, functional prosthesis while a further three required excision arthroplasty. We have formulated a protocol of treatment which may serve as a guide in the management of these infections.

We analysed which pre-operative factors could be used to predict the length of in-patient stay following unilateral primary total hip replacement undertaken for osteoarthritis. Data were collected prospectively from 2302 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement over a nine-year period. The relationships between the various pre-operative factors and length of stay were studied separately using either Student’s t-test or Pearson’s correlation, and then subjected to multiple linear regression analysis.

The mean length of stay was 8.1 days (median 7; 3 to 58). After adjusting for the effects of other pre-operative factors, younger age, male gender, higher combined Harris hip function and activity score, higher general health perception dimension of the Short-Form 36 score, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use were all found to be significantly associated with a reduced length of stay.

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.