Arthroscopic hip procedures have increased dramatically over the last decade as equipment and techniques have improved. Patients who require hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement on occasion require surgery on the contralateral hip. Previous studies have found that younger age of presentation and lower Charlson comorbidity index have higher risk for requiring surgery on the contralateral hip but have not found correlation to anatomic variables. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factors that predispose a patient to requiring subsequent hip arthroscopy on the contralateral hip.

This is an IRB-approved, single surgeon retrospective cohort study from an academic, tertiary referral centre. A chart review was conducted on 310 primary hip arthroscopy procedures from 2009-2020. We identified 62 cases that went on to have a hip arthroscopy on the contralateral side. The bilateral hip arthroscopy cohort was compared to unilateral cohort for sex, age, BMI, pre-op alpha angle and centre edge angle measured on AP pelvis XRay, femoral torsion, traction time, skin to skin time, Tonnis grade, intra-op labral or chondral defect. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant.

Of the 62 patients that required contralateral hip arthroscopy, the average age was 32.7 compared with 37.8 in the unilateral cohort (p = 0.01) and BMI was lower in the bilateral cohort (26.2) compared to the unilateral cohort (27.6) (p=0.04). The average alpha angle was 76.3⁰ in the bilateral compared to 66⁰ in the unilateral cohort (p = 0.01). Skin to skin time was longer in cases in which a contralateral surgery was performed (106.3 mins vs 86.4 mins) (p=0.01). Interestingly, 50 male patients required contralateral hip arthroscopy compared to 12 female patients (p=0.01). No other variables were statistically significant.

In conclusion, this study does re-enforce existing literature by stating that younger patients are more likely to require contralateral hip arthroscopy. This may be due to the fact that these patients require increased range of motion from the hip joint to perform activities such as sports where as older patients may not need the same amount of range of motion to perform their activities. Significantly higher alpha angles were noted in patients requiring contralateral hip arthroscopy, which has not been shown in previous literature. This helps to explain that larger CAM deformities will likely require contralateral hip arthroscopy because these patients likely impinge more during simple activities of daily living. Contralateral hip arthroscopy is also more common in male patients who typically have a larger CAM deformity. In summary, this study will help to risk stratify patients who will likely require contralateral hip arthroscopy and should be a discussion point during pre-operative counseling. That offering early subsequent or simultaneous hip arthroscopy in young male patients with large CAMs should be offered when symptoms are mild.

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume.

This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant.

For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161

Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique.

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume.

This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant.

For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161

Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique.

This matched cohort study aims to (a) assess differences in spinopelvic characteristics of patients having sustained a dislocation following THA and a control THA group without dislocation; (b) identify spinopelvic characteristics associated with risk of dislocation and; (c) propose an algorithm to define the optimum cup orientation for minimizing dislocation risk.

Fifty patients with a history of THA dislocation (29 posterior-, 21 anterior dislocations) were matched for age, gender, body mass index, index diagnosis, and femoral head size with 100 controls. All patients were reviewed and underwent detailed quasi-static radiographic evaluations of the coronal- (offset; center-of-rotation; cup inclination/anteversion) and sagittal- reconstructions (pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic-femoral-angle, cup ante-inclination). The spinopelvic balance (PI-LL), combined sagittal index (CSI= Pelvic-femoral-angle + Cup Anteinclination) and Hip-User-Index were determined. sagittal index (CSI= Pelvic-femoral-angle + Cup Anteinclination) and Hip-User-Index were determined. Parameters were compared between the two groups (2-group analysis) and between controls and per direction of dislocation (3-group analysis).

There were marginal coronal differences between the groups. Sagittal parameters (lumbar-lordosis, pelvic-tilt, CSI, PI-LL and Hip-User-Index) differed significantly. PI-LL (>10°) and standing pelvic tilt (>18°) were the strongest predictors of dislocation risk (sensistivity:70%/specificity:70%). All hips with a standing CSI<195° dislocated posteriorly and all with CSI>260° dislocated anteriorly. A CSI between 200–245° was associated with significantly reduced risk of dislocation (OR:6; 95%CI:2.5–15.0; p<0.001). In patients with unbalanced and/or rigid lumbar spine, standing CSI of 215–245° was associated with significantly reduced dislocation risk (OR:10; 95%CI:3.2–29.8; p<0.001).

PI-LL and standing pelvic-tilt determined from pre-operative, standing, lateral spinopelvic radiograph can be useful screening tools, alerting surgeons of patients at increased dislocation risk. Measurement of the pelvic-femoral angle pre-operatively provides valuable information to determine the optimum, cup orientation associated with reduced dislocation risk by aiming for a standing CSI of 200–245°.