Studies have shown that 10–30% patients do not achieve optimal function outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). High quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of techniques to improve functional outcomes after THR are lacking. We performed this study to evaluate the feasibility of a RCT comparing patient-reported functional outcomes after hybrid or fully cemented THR (ISRCTN11097021).

Patients were recruited from two centres and randomised to receive either a fully cemented or hybrid THR. Data collection included Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), non-serious adverse events of special interest (AESI), serious adverse device effects (SADE) and NHS resource use. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to understand a) patient experiences of study processes and their reasons for taking part or not, and b) to understand surgeons’ perceptions of the study, factors affecting willingness to participate, and barriers to implementation of the future RCT findings.

The target of 40 patients were successfully recruited for the feasibility RCT; the ratio of successful recruitment to eligible patients was 0.61 across both sites. Treatment crossovers occurred in four patients, all related to bone quality. Four patients were withdrawn due to not undergoing surgery within the study window because of the pandemic. Follow-up was 100% and PROMs were completed by all patients at all time points. The feasibility of conducting a within-trial cost-utility analysis was demonstrated. Interviews were conducted with 27 patients and 16 surgeons. Patients and surgeons generally found the study procedures acceptable and workable. Some declined participation because they did not want treatment allocated at random, or because blinding was off-putting. Surgeons’ perceptions of equipoise varied, and implementation of findings from the future RCT would need to recognise the ‘craft’ nature of surgery and the issue of training.

We conclude that a full RCT with economic analysis will be both feasible and practicable, although mechanisms to safely implement potential changes to practice because of RCT findings may need consideration by the wider arthroplasty community.

Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) has been reported to be as high as 60% at 5 years. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality rate for PPF revisions, compared to revision for aseptic loosening or infection at our tertiary referral centre.

Revision arthroplasty procedures performed for PPF, aseptic loosening or infection between January 2014 and December 2015 at our institution were identified using a prospectively collected PPF referral database and locally collected NJR data. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups for baseline demographics, admission to higher-level care, length of stay, complications, and Kaplan-Meier failure (mortality) at 1 & 5 years post-operative (with log-rank test for equality).

There were 37 PPF, 71 infected and 221 aseptic revisions. PPF had a higher proportion of females (65% vs. 39% in infection and 53% in aseptic; p = 0.031) and grade 3 and 4 ASA patients (p = 0.006). Median time to surgery from injury for PPF was 8 days (95% CI, 6–16). Single-stage procedures were performed in 84% of PPF, 42% of infection and 99% of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). 19% of PPF revisions required HDU admission, 1% in the aseptic group and none in the infection group (p<0.001). Median length of stay was significantly different (PPF 10; infection 14; aseptic 8 days (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 1-year mortality were: PPF = 0%; infection = 2.8% (0.7–11.1%); aseptic = 0.9% (0.2–3.5%). 5-year mortality estimates were: PPF = 17.1% (8–34%), infection = 8.7% (4–18.3%), aseptic = 12% (8.4–17%). Log-rank test of equality was not significant, p=0.833.

Despite the PPF group having an average delay to surgery of 8 days, higher ASA grades and more admissions to HDU there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the groups at 1 and 5 years postoperatively. Using a coherent MDT approach with dedicated healthcare professionals this service demonstrates a low post operative mortality rate which merits further investment and development.

The protective effect of lipped polyethylene uncemented acetabular liners against revision THA for instability has been reported. However, the effect of lip size has not been explored, nor has the effect on revision THA for loosening. We aimed to determine if uncemented acetabular liner geometry, and lip size, influences the risk of revision THA for instability or loosening.

202511 primary THAs with uncemented polyethylene acetabular components were identified from the NJR dataset (2003 – 2017). The effect of acetabular liner geometry and lip size on the risk of revision THA for instability or loosening was investigated using binomial regression and competing risks survival analyses (competing risks were revision for other causes or death) adjusting for age, gender, ASA grade, diagnosis, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size and polyethylene crosslinking.

The distribution of acetabular liners was: neutral – 39.4%, offset neutral – 0.9%, 10-degree – 34.5%, 15-degree – 21.6%, 20-degree – 0.8%, offset reorientating – 2.82%. There were 690 (0.34%) revision THAs for instability and 604 (0.3%) for loosening. Significant subhazard risk ratios were found in revision THA for instability with 10-degree (0.63), 15-degree (0.48) and offset reorientating (1.6) liners, compared to neutral liners. There was no association found between liner geometry and risk of revision THA for loosening.

This Registry based study confirms a significantly lower risk of revision THA for instability when a lipped liner is used, compared to neutral liners, and a higher risk with the use of offset reorientating liners. Furthermore, 15degree liners seem to have a lower risk than 10degree liners. We did not find an association between acetabular liner geometry and revision THA for loosening.

10- and 15-degree lipped polyethylene liners seem to offer a lower revision risk over neutral liners, at least at medium term followup. Further studies are required to confirm if this benefit continues into the long-term.

Principles of bone preservation and restoration of biomechanical alignment should be followed during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Where possible, conservative femoral revision techniques and even reconstructive de-escalation involving using primary stems should be considered. This study aims to investigate the outcome of patients who have undergone conservative femoral revision THA in our Institution.

We retrospectively identified patients from our Institution's revision arthroplasty database who had cemented, or un-cemented primary stems implanted during revision THA of a previous stemmed femoral implant. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause re-revision THA with a secondary outcome measure of improvement in Oxford hip score (OHS). Radiographic evidence of stem loosening and post-op complications were recorded.

Between 02/12/2014 to 12/12/2019, there were 226 patients identified with a mean follow up of 2 years (1–5 years). The majority of cases were represented by Paprosky type 1 (63%) and type 2 (25%) femoral defects. There were 45 patients (20%) who underwent impaction bone grafting (IBG) and 43 patients (19%) who had a cement in cement (CinC) femoral revision and cemented primary stem in 137 (60%), 1 uncemented stem with no IBG or CinC revision. Kaplan Meier survival for all-cause re-revision THA was 93.7% (95% CI: 88.3 – 100) at 3 years. The reasons for re-revision included 4 periprosthetic fractures, 4 dislocations, 1 deep infection, 1 loosening of femoral component and 1 loosening of acetabular component. Pre- and post-operative OHS scores were available in 137 hips (60%) with a mean improvement of 13. Radiographic review revealed 7% of cases with evidence of loosening in 1 or more Gruen zones.

Our early results support the use of conservative femoral revision THA techniques where appropriate, with low complication and re-revision rates. Revisions using primary femoral components, where appropriate, should be considered in surgical planning to avoid unnecessary reconstructive escalation.

Cemented acetabular components commonly have a long posterior wall (LPW). Alternative components have a hooded or offset reorientating geometry, theoretically to reduce the risk of THR instability. We aimed to determine if cemented acetabular component geometry influences the risk of revision surgery for instability or loosening.

The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) dataset was analysed for primary THAs performed between 2003 – 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were identified. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using binomial regression adjusting for age, gender, ASA grade, diagnosis, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking and head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death.

Among the cohort of subjects included, the distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW – 81.2%, hooded – 18.7% and offset reorientating – 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.47%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.36%) were for instability and 838 (0.37%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.29 (p<0.001) and 4.12 (p=0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.43 (p<0.001) in the hooded group and 11.47 (p<0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first 6 months.

This Registry based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision THA for instability and for loosening when a cemented hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to an LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice.

Aims

The exact risk to patients undergoing surgery who develop COVID-19 is not yet fully known. This study aims to provide the current data to allow adequate consent regarding the risks of post-surgery COVID-19 infection and subsequent COVID-19-related mortality.

Back ground:

Previous studies have stated that presence of concomitant back pain has a negative effect on the outcome of lumbar decompression/microdiscectomy but none have actually defined what level of back pain should be considered as significant. This is a study of consecutive patients who underwent a primary single level lumbar micro decompression /microdiscectomy performed by thirty nine surgeons at a single tertiary spinal centre between August 2011 and December 2014. The aim was to determine the differential effect of the intensity of back pain and leg pain as a predictor of outcome.

Background

Steroid injections can be used safely to treat trigger fingers. We aimed to determine the accuracy of referring General Practitioner (GP) diagnoses of trigger finger made to an upper limb surgeon. We also aimed to determine the efficacy of a serial two steroid injection then surgery technique in the management of trigger fingers.