Studies on short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) are limited, with no studies on long-term outcomes. Our study aimed to investigate whether the Mayo conservative hip stem demonstrates favourable mid- to long-term outcomes in these patients.

This retrospective study included 42 patients (50 joints) with DDH aged <55 years who underwent THA using the Mayo conservative hip stem and excluded those with a follow-up period <5 years. Radiographic evaluation involved comparison of the immediate postoperative anteroposterior images with those at the final follow-up. Clinical evaluations utilised the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) hip score and major postoperative complications, including revision surgery.

The mean age of the patients was 48.8 years, with a median follow-up of 11 years. According to the Crowe classification, 35, 11, and 4 cases were classified as Types I, II, and III, respectively. According to the Dorr classification, 29 and 21 cases were classified as Types A and B, respectively. Radiographically, spot welds were observed in 98% of joints in zones 2 or 6, whereas stress shielding was evident in 94% (zone 1) and 54% (zone 7) of the joints. Stem sinking ⩾3 mm was observed in 2 joints. No periprosthetic femoral fractures, dislocations, or infections were observed.

The Mayo conservative stem in young patients with DDH resulted in favourable mid- to long-term outcomes, including stability and bone preservation. The stem is an effective treatment strategy for these patients.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) following hip arthroplasty, especially Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, present a challenge due to the association with a loose femoral stem, necessitating either open reduction and internal fixation or stem revision. This study aims to compare outcomes between uncemented and cemented stem revisions in managing Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, considering factors such as hip-related complications, reoperations, and clinical outcome.

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Danderyd Hospital, Sweden, from 2008 to 2022, encompassing operatively treated Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures. Patients were categorized into uncemented and cemented stem revision groups, with data collected on complications, revision surgeries, fracture healing times, and clinical outcomes.

A total of 241 patients were identified. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in patient demographics, with the cemented group comprising older patients and more females. Follow up ranged from 1 to 15 years. Average follow up time was 3.9 years for the cemented group and 5.5 years for the uncemented group. The cemented stems demonstrated lower rates of dislocation (8.9% versus 22.5%, P = 0.004) and stem loosening (0.6% versus 9.3%, P = 0.004) than the uncemented method. Moreover, the cemented group exhibited shorter fracture healing times (11.4 weeks versus 16.7 weeks, P = 0.034). There was no difference in clinical outcome between groups. Mortality was higher in the cemented group.

This retrospective study indicates that cemented stem revision for Vancouver B2-3 fractures is correlated with lower dislocation and stem loosening rates, necessitating fewer reoperations and shorter fracture healing times compared with the uncemented approach. The cemented group had a notably higher mortality rate, urging caution in its clinical interpretation.

Historically, total hip arthroplasty (THA) in very young patients has been associated with lower survivorship. However, the long-term outcomes of THA using short stems for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) in very young patients remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of the Mayo conservative hip system, a short metaphyseal stabilised stem, in patients with ONFH aged ≦30 years.

We retrospectively reviewed 104 joints in 76 patients with ONFH who underwent THA using the Mayo conservative hip system with a minimum follow-up of 8 years. The mean follow-up period was 12.5 (range, 8-19) years. Patients were categorised into two age groups (≦30 years, n = 21 and > 30 years, n = 83). Radiographic evaluation was used to assess stem sinking, stress shielding, and spot welds. The clinical evaluations were performed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) hip score. Postoperative major complication and revision surgery rates were also assessed.

The patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for the age. Revision surgeries were performed in five cases, with similar implant survival rates between the groups. Dislocations occurred in the older age group alone (four joints). One case of intra-operative periprosthetic femoral fracture was found in the younger age group. Stem sinking of > 3 mm occurred in one and seven joints in the younger and older age groups, respectively. Spot welds were observed in most joints (93.2%) in modified Gruen zones 2 and 6 without significant differences between the groups. Stress shielding showed no significant differences in the frequency of occurrence or location between the two groups. Furthermore,the JOA score showed no significant difference between the two groups.

The use of short stems in patients aged ≤ 30 years with ONFH showed favourable long-term outcomes.

The popularity of uncemented stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in the last decade.

To assess the outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems after mid-term follow up.

This study was performed following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were chosen irrespective of country of origin or language utilized for the article full texts. This paper included studies that reviewed revision THA for both cemented or uncemented long stems.

Three eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis was conducted by using Review Manager version 5.3. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used random-effect models. There were no significant differences found for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-5.32; P = 0.76], aseptic loosening (RR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.81-5.70; P = 0.13), dislocation rate (RR = 0.50; 95%CI: 0.10-2.47; P = 0.39), or infection rate (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.82-1.19; P = 0.89), between the uncemented and the cemented long stems for revision THA after mid-term follow-up.

This study has evaluated the mid-term outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems at first-time revision THA. In summary, there were no significant differences in the dislocation rate, aseptic loosening, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture and infection rate between the two cohorts.

Worldwide, the majority of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) placed in patients <55 years are uncemented. However, little is known about the preferred method of fixation in revision hip arthroplasty in young patients. The aim of this study was to assess potential differences in the method of fixation used between primary and revision THA in young patients using data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

All primary THA placed in patients younger than 55 years, registered in the LROI between 2007 and 2019 were included n = 28,516). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to estimate the survival of primary THA by method of fixation. Additionally, survival of revision procedures that changed or did not change in method of fixation were estimated. McNemar's test was used to assess differences in the proportion of cemented and uncemented fixation between primary and revision THA.

In all acetabular revisions, the use of cemented fixation increased statistically significant with 39% (95% CI, 34-45, p < 0.001) from 23% in primary THA to 62% in revision procedures. In all femoral revisions, the increase of cemented fixation was also statistically significant with 25% (95% CI, 19-31, p < 0.001), from 11% in primary THA to 36% in revision surgery. For both revised acetabular and femoral components, we found no statistically significant difference in the 5-year survival between revision procedures that changed or did not change in method of fixation.

There was a significant change towards cemented fixation between primary and revision THA in young patients in the Netherlands, which was especially pronounced in acetabular revisions. No significant difference in short-term survival was found between revision procedures that changed or did not change in method of fixation. Long-term follow-up data are needed to evaluate the effect of this change in fixation method on the outcome of revision procedures in young patients.

Short stem hip replacement has not only gained attention but also significance over the past decades. However, there still remains uncertainty regarding the correct indications for these stems. Even companies, producing implants, have varying recommendations that are more likely based on a well-meant advice than on statistically evaluated data. Thus, it is important to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a short stem prosthesis. The goal of this paper is to reveal some of the existing uncertainty in this field, by analyzing the Metha^® short hip stem system. This paper does not only focus on general aspects but also discusses some more specific problems, such as avascular necrosis and post-rheumatic diseases, as well as hip dysplasia and coxarthrosis. The aim is also to convey the opportunity to indicate this type of implant for elderly and obese patients as well as for femoral misalignments following post-Perthes disease, post-traumatic deformities or other malpositions of the hip.

This study aimed to examine the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of revision THA using the S-ROM-A stem, a modification of the S-ROM stem intended for Asians.

Femoral reconstruction using the S-ROM-A stem was performed in 126 hips that underwent revision THA. All patients were followed for perioperative complications. In addition, clinical and radiographic outcomes at a mean of 8 (range 5-14) years postoperatively were evaluated in 96 hips of 86 patients (76%).

The most common perioperative complication was a femoral fracture, occurring in 16 hips (13%), including 11 intraoperative and 5 postoperative fractures. Dislocation occurred in five hips (4.0%), infection in three hips (2.4%), and trunnionosis in two hips (1.6%), including late complications. The total second stem revision was performed in two hips while stem only second revision preserving the bone ingrown sleeve was performed in four hips. With a second revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint, the 13-year stem survival rate was 100%. Hip function as assessed by the Japanese Orthopedic Association score improved from a mean of 48 points preoperatively to 87 points 8 years postoperatively (P < .05). Radiological evaluation at the final follow-up showed that 95 hips (99%) achieved bone ingrowth fixation and one hip (1%) achieved fibrous stable status.

Revision THA using the S-ROM-A stem resulted in good medium-term outcomes. Although modifications of the stem length and shape may be effective in preventing fractures in Asians with relatively small body sizes, attention should be paid to the occurrence of trunnionosis, which may be associated with the decreased taper size.

Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects.Patients and methods - 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006-2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated.Results - Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2-1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2-23) during the first 3 years.Interpretation - Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.

Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are increasingly used in revision hip arthroplasty, but only a few studies have analyzed the outcomes of uncemented and cemented revision stems in large cohorts of patients. We compared the results of uncemented and cemented revision stems. Patients and methods - 1,668 uncemented and 1,328 cemented revision stems used in first-time revisions due to aseptic loosening between 1999 and 2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to investigate unadjusted implant survival with re-revision for any reason as the primary outcome. Hazard ratios (HR) for the risk of re-revision were calculated using a Cox regression model adjusted for sex, age, head size, concomitant cup revision, surgical approach at primary and at index revision surgery, and indication for primary total hip arthroplasty. Results - Unadjusted 10-year survival was 85% (95% CI 83-87) for uncemented and 88% (CI 86-90) for cemented revision stems. The adjusted HR for re-revision of uncemented revision stems during the first year after surgery was 1.3 (CI 1.0-1.6), from the second year the HR was 1.1 (CI 0.8-1.4). Uncemented stems were most often re-revised early due to infection and dislocation, whereas cemented stems were mostly re-revised later due to aseptic loosening. Interpretation - Both uncemented and cemented revision stems had satisfactory long-term survival but they differed in their modes of failure. Our conclusions are limited by the fact that femoral bone defect size could not be investigated within the setting of the current study.

The aim of this study was to analyze the survival of the Echelon® femoral stems in revision hip surgeries in patients with Paprosky I-IIIA femoral defects.

Sixty-six patients (70 hips) who underwent revision hip surgery with at least 3 years of follow-up data were included in the study between 2000 and 2013. The mean patient age was 64.5 (32-83) years, and the mean follow-up period was 93 (45-206) months. The reasons for revision were aseptic loosening in 55 (78.6%) patients, periprosthetic joint infection in 9 (12.9%) patients, periprosthetic fracture in 4 (5.7%) patients, and stem fracture in 2 (2.9%) patients. The preoperative and postoperative follow-up X-rays and functional scores were evaluated.

Five patients died in an average of 70 (45-86) months after surgery due to non-related diseases. We encountered sciatic nerve palsy in two patients and early hip dislocation in two patients, whereas 54 patients were able to walk without any assistive device. The remaining 12 patients required an assistive device to walk. The mean Harris hip score significantly increased from 34 (7-63) preoperatively to 72 (43-96) postoperatively. Aseptic loosening was observed in one patient. The survival of the porous-coated anatomical uncemented femoral stem was 98.4% over 10 years.

This study showed that good clinical outcomes and survival can be obtained when using porous-coated anatomical uncemented femoral stems.

This study reviewed literature published in the last 10 years to investigate the reasons for revision failure. A total of 9952 revisions were identified and it was determined that the number one cause of failure was aseptic loosening (23.19%), followed by instability (22.43%) and infection (22.13%). Further analysis of applicable revisions investigated BMI and age at the failure rates. The rate of rerevision in obese patients was markedly higher (p < 0.01) compared to non-obese patients and individuals receiving a revision THA under the age of 55 are at a higher risk of rerevision (p < 0.01).

In revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), the cancellous bone is normally completely removed out of the femoral canal during stem extraction. This situation is comparable to primary THA following the shape-closed concept, with some authors advocating to remove the metaphyseal cancellous bone to enhance press-fit stability ("French paradox"). The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome, regarding survival and radiological results, of a cemented straight stem when used for revision THA and to compare these results to the results of the same stem in primary THA.

178 stem revisions performed between 01/1994 and 08/2008 using the Virtec straight stem were included. The cumulative incidence for re-revision was calculated using a competing risk model. Risk factors for re-revision of the stem were analyzed using an absolute risk regression model. Radiographs analyzed for osteolysis, debonding and subsidence had a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

The cumulative incidence for re-revision due to aseptic loosening of the stem was 5.5% (95% CI, 2.9-10.2%) at 10 years. Aseptic loosening was associated with younger age, larger defect size and larger stem size. After a minimum 10-year follow-up, osteolysis was seen in 39 of 80 revision THA. Compared to the results in primary THA, the survival in revision THA with the same implant was inferior.

Cemented straight stems used for revision THA showed excellent long-term results regarding survivorship and radiological outcome. This stem therefore offers a valuable and cost-effective option in revision THA.

Modern primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is among the most successful operations in medicine. It has been a consistently effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip. With the increasing number of primary THA procedures being performed and the decreasing age of patients undergoing the procedure, there is an inevitable associated increase in revision burden for arthroplasty surgeons. Revision THA is most often indicated for instability, aseptic loosening, osteolysis, infection, periprosthetic fracture, component malposition, and catastrophic implant failure. Understanding the etiology of THA failure is essential for guiding clinical decision making. Femoral component revision presents a complex challenge to the arthroplasty surgeon because of modern implant design as well as bone loss in the proximal femur. Thorough patient evaluation, defect classification, and well-executed surgical reconstruction based on comprehensive preoperative planning may determine the postoperative results. Knowledge of various reconstructive options and the indications for each is necessary to achieve a successful outcome. This article highlights the most common indications for revision after THA and offers recommendations for how to approach revision of the femoral component. Specifically, the authors review preoperative assessment, common classification systems for femoral deficiency, techniques for component extraction, and modalities of femoral component fixation. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):e1129-e1139.].

Cementless revision hip arthroplasty is described as state of the art, especially in cases of advanced bone loss of the femur. A requirement for a good result from cement-free revision hip arthroplasty is classification of the bone defect and the presence of a mechanically stable anchorage in the area of the original implant or, in cases of bone defects, distal to the original area in stable diaphyseal bone. The possibility of the accumulation of autografts or allogeneic osseous grafts and the entire removal of the cement and debris has been postulated. The advantages of cementless revision hip arthroplasty include regeneration of the bone stock and the often available modularity of the revision hip system, which allows adaptation to different bone configurations and also allows a partial change of the prosthesis in rerevision cases, such as in cases of sintering or derotation. Cemented revision arthroplasty should be done only in special cases, such as with marginal bone defects or for older patients with a short life expectancy.