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:
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
We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression.Objectives
Methods
Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement. A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of >
55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections. To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit.
We have studied the natural history of a first episode of dislocation after primary total hip replacement (THR) to clarify the incidence of recurrent dislocation, the need for subsequent revision and the quality of life of these patients. Over a six-year period, 99 patients (101 hips) presented with a first dislocation of a primary THR. A total of 61 hips (60.4%) had dislocated more than once. After a minimum follow-up of one year, seven patients had died. Of the remaining 94 hips (92 patients), 47 underwent a revision for instability and one awaits operation (51% in total). Of these, seven re-dislocated and four needed further surgery. The quality of life of the patients was studied using the Oxford Hip Score and the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A control group of patients who had not dislocated was also studied. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1 to 20), the mean Oxford Hip Score was 26.7 (15 to 47) after one episode of dislocation, 27.2 (12 to 45) after recurrent dislocation, 34.5 (12 to 54) after successful revision surgery, 42 (29 to 55) after failed revision surgery and 17.4 (12 to 32) in the control group. The EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire revealed more health problems in patients undergoing revision surgery.
