Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented stems have an excellent clinical track record and are the most common stem type used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the UK. Due to low rates of aseptic loosening, they have largely replaced more traditional composite beam (CB) cemented stems. However, there is now emerging evidence from multiple joint registries that PTS stems are associated with higher rates of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to their CB stem counterparts. The risk of both intraoperative and postoperative PFF remains greater with uncemented stems compared to either of these cemented stem subtypes. PFF continues to be a devastating complication following primary THA and is associated with high complication and mortality rates. Recent efforts have focused on identifying implant-related risk factors for PFF in order to guide preventative strategies, and therefore the purpose of this article is to present the current evidence on the effect of cemented femoral stem design on the risk of PFF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):11–15

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

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.

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758.

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: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):661–663.

Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies have started producing and distributing implants that purport to replicate existing implants with good long-term results.

The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:892–900.

Aims

To demonstrate, with concrete examples, the value of in-depth exploration and comparison of data published in National Joint Arthroplasty registry reports.

Aims

The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At present there is no established standard of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres.

This study evaluated the feasibility of using published data from more than one register to define the performance of different hip implants. In order to obtain estimates of performance for specific types of hip system from different register, we analysed data from the annual reports of five national and one Italian regional register. We extracted the number of implants and rates of implant survival at different periods of follow-up. Our aim was to assess whether estimates of cumulative survival rate were comparable with data from registers from different countries, and our conclusion was that such a comparison could only be performed incompletely.

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.

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.

This paper considers the new financial infrastructure of the National Health Service and provides a resource for orthopaedic surgeons. We describe the importance of accurate documentation and data collection for National Health Service hospital Trust finances and league tables, and support our discussion with examples drawn from our local audit work.

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.