The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint.Aims
Methods
This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) stems. Radiographs of 71 patients with a PFF admitted consecutively at two centres between 25 February 2012 and 19 May 2020 were collated by an independent investigator. Six observers (three hip consultants and three trainees) were familiarized with the UCS. Each PFF was classified on two separate occasions, with a mean time between assessments of 22.7 days (16 to 29). Interobserver reliability for more than two observers was assessed using percentage agreement and Fleiss’ kappa statistic. Intraobserver reliability between two observers was calculated with Cohen kappa statistic. Validity was tested on surgically managed UCS type B PFFs where stem stability was documented in operation notes (n = 50). Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa statistic between radiological assessment and intraoperative findings. Kappa statistics were interpreted using Landis and Koch criteria. All six observers were blinded to operation notes and postoperative radiographs.Aims
Methods
This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Data were collected for PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres between 25 May 2006 and 1 March 2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and AO/OTA type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (polished taper-slip (PTS) vs composite beam (CB)). The effect of multiple variables was estimated using multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Surgical treatment (revision vs fixation) was compared by UCS grade and AO/OTA type.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter). This retrospective cohort study assessed 152 operatively managed consecutive unilateral Vancouver B fractures involving Exeter stems; 130 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and 22 with revision arthroplasty. Mean follow-up was 6.5 years (SD 2.6; 3.2 to 12.1). The primary outcome measure was revision of at least one component. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed. Regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for revision following ORIF. Secondary outcomes included any reoperation, complications, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and mortality.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic fracture (PF) after primary total hip arthroplasty
(THA) is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication. This
study aims to investigate the influence of cemented stem designs
on the risk of needing a revision for a PF. We analysed data on 257 202 primary THAs with cemented stems
and 390 linked first revisions for PF recorded in the National Joint
Registry (NJR) of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine
if a cemented femoral stem brand was associated with the risk of
having revision for a PF after primary THA. All cemented femoral
stem brands with more than 10 000 primary operations recorded in
the NJR were identified. The four most commonly used cemented femoral
stems were the Exeter V40 (n = 146 409), CPT (n = 24 300), C-Stem
(n = 15 113) and Charnley (n = 20 182). We compared the revision risk ratios due to PF amongst the stems
using a Poisson regression model adjusting for patient factors.
Compared with the Exeter V40, the age, gender and ASA grade adjusted
revision rate ratio was 3.89 for the cemented CPT stem (95% confidence
interval (CI) 3.07 to 4.93), 0.89 for the C-Stem (95% CI 0.57 to
1.41) and 0.41 for the Charnley stem (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70).Aims
Patients and Methods
We assessed the orientation of the acetabular
component in 1070 primary total hip arthroplasties with hard-on-soft, small
diameter bearings, aiming to determine the size and site of the
target zone that optimises outcome. Outcome measures included complications,
dislocations, revisions and ΔOHS (the difference between the Oxford
Hip Scores pre-operatively and five years post-operatively). A wide
scatter of orientation was observed (2 This study demonstrated that with traditional technology surgeons
can only reliably achieve a target zone of ±15°. As the optimal
zone to diminish the risk of dislocation is also ±15°, surgeons
should be able to achieve this. This is the first study to demonstrate
that optimal orientation of the acetabular component improves the
functional outcome. However, the target zone is small (± 5°) and
cannot, with current technology, be consistently achieved. Cite this article:
Recent events have highlighted the importance
of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following
metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival
of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing
(BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study
was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional
outcome of the BHR from an independent centre. In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of
51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1
to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended
on gender and the size of the implant. In female hips (n = 267)
the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to
91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean
Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 ( This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active
men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with
conventional THR. In contrast, the results in women have been poor
and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous
follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of
pseudotumour with the passage of time.
Pseudotumour is a rare but important complication of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing that occurs much more commonly in women than in men. We examined the relationship between head-neck ratio (HNR) and pseudotumour formation in 18 resurfaced hips (18 patients) revised for pseudotumour and 42 asymptomatic control resurfaced hips (42 patients). Patients in whom pseudotumour formation had occurred had higher pre-operative HNR than the control patients (mean 1.37 ( We suggest that reducing the size of the femoral head, made possible by a high pre-operative HNR, increases the risk of impingement and edge loading, and may contribute to high wear and pseudotumour formation. As the incidence of pseudotumour is low in men, it appears safe to perform resurfacing in men. However, this study suggests that it is also reasonable to resurface in women with a pre-operative HNR ≤ 1.3.
Pseudotumours are a rare complication of hip resurfacing. They are thought to be a response to metal debris which may be caused by edge loading due to poor orientation of the acetabular component. Our aim was to determine the optimal acetabular orientation to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation. We matched 31 hip resurfacings revised for pseudotumour formation with 58 controls who had a satisfactory outcome from this procedure. The radiographic inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular component were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis using Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse software. The mean inclination angle (47°, 10° to 81°) and anteversion angle (14°, 4° to 34°) of the pseudotumour cases were the same (p = 0.8, p = 0.2) as the controls, 46° (29° to 60°) and 16° (4° to 30°) respectively, but the variation was greater. Assuming an accuracy of implantation of ± 10° about a target position, the optimal radiographic position was found to be approximately 45° of inclination and 20° of anteversion. The incidence of pseudotumours inside the zone was four times lower (p = 0.007) than outside the zone. In order to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation we recommend that surgeons implant the acetabular component at an inclination of 45° (± 10) and anteversion of 20° (± 10) on post-operative radiographs. Because of differences between the radiographic and the operative angles, this may be best achieved by aiming for an inclination of 40° and an anteversion of 25°.
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is commonly performed for osteoarthritis in young active patients. We have observed cystic or solid masses, which we have called inflammatory pseudotumours, arising around these devices. They may cause soft-tissue destruction with severe symptoms and a poor outcome after revision surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for pseudotumours that are serious enough to require revision surgery. Since 1999, 1419 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings have been implanted by our group in 1224 patients; 1.8% of the patients had a revision for pseudotumour. In this series the Kaplan-Meier cumulative revision rate for pseudotumour increased progressively with time. At eight years, in all patients, it was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 5.8). Factors significantly associated with an increase in revision rate were female gender (p <
0.001), age under 40 (p = 0.003), small components (p = 0.003), and dysplasia (p = 0.019), whereas implant type was not (p = 0.156). These factors were inter-related, however, and on fitting a Cox proportional hazard model only gender (p = 0.002) and age (p = 0.024) had a significant independent influence on revision rate; size nearly reached significance (p = 0.08). Subdividing the cohort according to significant factors, we found that the revision rate for pseudotumours in men was 0.5% (95% CI 0 to 1.1) at eight years wheras in women over 40 years old it was 6% (95% CI 2.3 to 10.1) at eight years and in women under 40 years it was 13.1% at six years (95% CI 0 to 27) (p <
0.001). We recommend that resurfacings are undertaken with caution in women, particularly those under 40 years of age but they remain a good option in young men. Further work is required to understand the aetiology of pseudotumours so that this complication can be avoided.
Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and often lead to revision. Our aim was to determine the severity of this complication by assessing the outcome of revision in these circumstances and by comparing this with the outcome of other metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revisions as well as that of matched primary total hip replacements. We identified 53 hips which had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and required revision at a mean of 1.59 years (0.01 to 6.69) after operation. Of these, 16 were revised for pseudotumours, 21 for fracture and 16 for other reasons. These were matched by age, gender and diagnosis with 103 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement with the Exeter implant. At a mean follow-up of three years (0.8 to 7.2) the outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision for pseudotumour was poor with a mean Oxford hip score of 20.9 ( The outcome of revision for pseudotumour is poor and consideration should be given to early revision to limit the extent of the soft-tissue destruction. The outcome of resurfacing revision for other causes is good.
We report 17 patients (20 hips) in whom metal-on-metal resurfacing had been performed and who presented with various symptoms and a soft-tissue mass which we termed a pseudotumour. Each patient underwent plain radiography and in some, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were also performed. In addition, histological examination of available samples was undertaken. All the patients were women and their presentation was variable. The most common symptom was discomfort in the region of the hip. Other symptoms included spontaneous dislocation, nerve palsy, a noticeable mass or a rash. The common histological features were extensive necrosis and lymphocytic infiltration. To date, 13 of the 20 hips have required revision to a conventional hip replacement. Two are awaiting revision. We estimate that approximately 1% of patients who have a metal-on-metal resurfacing develop a pseudotumour within five years. The cause is unknown and is probably multifactorial. There may be a toxic reaction to an excess of particulate metal wear debris or a hypersensitivity reaction to a normal amount of metal debris. We are concerned that with time the incidence of these pseudotumours may increase. Further investigation is required to define their cause.