Nerve palsy is a well-described complication following total hip arthroplasty, but is highly distressing and disabling. A nerve palsy may cause difficulty with the post-operative rehabilitation, and overall mobility of the patient. Nerve palsy may result from compression and tension to the affected nerve(s) during the course of the operation via surgical manipulation and retractor placement, tension from limb lengthening or compression from post-operative hematoma. In the literature, hip dysplasia, lengthening of the leg, the use of an uncemented femoral component, and female gender are associated with a greater risk of nerve palsy. We examined our experience at a high-volume, tertiary care referral centre, and found an overall incidence of 0.3% out of 39 056 primary hip arthroplasties. Risk factors found to be associated with the incidence of nerve palsy at our institution included the presence of spinal stenosis or lumbar disc disease, age younger than 50, and smoking. If a nerve palsy is diagnosed, imaging is mandatory and surgical evacuation or compressive haematomas may be beneficial. As palsies are slow to recover, supportive care such as bracing, therapy, and reassurance are the mainstays of treatment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):46–9.

Surgical interventions consisting of internal fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However, in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):43–7.

Objectives

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) is available as an alternative option for younger, more active patients. There are failure modes that are unique to MOMHR, which include loosening of the femoral head and fractures of the femoral neck. Previous studies have speculated that changes in the vascularity of the femoral head may contribute to these failure modes. This study compares the survivorship between the standard posterior approach (SPA) and modified posterior approach (MPA) in MOMHR.

Cementless femoral stems are currently preferred for total hip replacement (THR) in the United States. Improvements in stem design, instrumentation and surgical technique have made this technology highly successful, reproducible, and applicable to the vast majority of patients requiring a THR. However, there are ongoing developments in some aspects of stem design that influence clinical results, the incidence of complications and their inherent adaptability in accommodating the needs of individual patients. Here we examine some of these design features.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:53–6.

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results.

A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions.

We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort.

Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91.

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.