Definition and validation of a system for classifying the undersized Corail femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The uncemented total hip arthroplasty relies on a secure initial fixation of the femoral stem to achieve osseointegration. Undersizing of the femoral implant compromises this. Surgeons routinely review postoperative radiographs to assess appropriate sizing, but existing methods of assessment lack standardisation. We present a system of accurately and reliably classifying radiological undersizing, which will help us better understand the factors that might have led to undersizing. AIM: To describe and evaluate a classification system for assessing radiological undersizing of the uncemented stem in hip arthroplasty. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective review of 1,337 consecutive hip arthroplasties using the Corail stem. Two independent investigators reviewed post-operative radiographs and classified them as either appropriately sized or undersized. Undersized stems were sub-categorised into four subtypes: uniformly undersized, varus undersized, valgus undersized or 'cocktail-glass' undersized. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was determined. The accuracy of our classification system was validated by comparison with digital re-templating. We further assessed patient demographics and stem size in relation to sizing. RESULTS: 1 in 5 cases (19.75%) were deemed radiologically undersized. The commonest subtypes of undersizing were uniformly (47%) and varus (39%) undersized. When assessing sizing and subtype categorisation, inter-observer agreement was 89-92% and intra-observer agreement 86%. Classification decisions showed 92% and 97% accuracy for uniformly undersizing and varus undersizing respectively when validated against digital re-templating. Age, gender and smaller stem size were significantly associated with radiological undersizing. The Corail KLA model (125° neck) was found to have a higher incidence of stems undersized in varus. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes and validates a classification system for the analysis of radiological undersizing.

The articular surface replacement implant recall: a United Kingdom district hospital experience.

We present our experience of the articular surface replacement (ASR) hip and the implant recall process. One hundred and twenty-one ASR components were implanted (21 resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and 100 ASR/XL modular total hip replacements). At the time of the implant recall in August 2010 there were 111 surviving hips (92%) with a mean follow-up of 44 months. Nine hips had been revised and one had been listed for revision surgery. Ninety-two percent of surviving implants were reviewed in the recall clinics, and blood metal ion levels or ultrasound scans were indicated in 38 hips (34%). Immediately after the recall process seven hips (6 ASR/XL and 1 RHA) were listed for revision and a further 9 were kept under close surveillance. One year after completion of the recall process 23 hips (19 ASR/XL and 4 RHA's) had been revised. A diagnosis of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) was made at surgery in all but two hips. Our current revision rate for ASR RHA is 19% (mean follow-up 62 months, range 29-80) and for the ASR/XL is 19% (mean follow-up 53 months, range 10-80). The 5-year cumulative survival rates with revision for any reason for the ASR/XL, was 80.8% (95% confidence interval 72.0 - 89.5). Given experience elsewhere we expect this rate may increase significantly with time.

Reducing the rate of early primary hip dislocation by combining a change in surgical technique and an increase in femoral head diameter to 36 mm.

INTRODUCTION: We report how changes to our total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgical practise lead to a decrease in early hip dislocation rates. METHODS: Group B consisted of 421 consecutive primary THA operations performed via a posterior approach. The operative technique included a meticulous repair of the posterior capsule, alignment of the acetabular cup with the transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) and a 36-mm-diameter femoral head. We compared the dislocation rates and cost implications of this technique to a historical control Group A consisting of 389 patients. The control group had their THA performed with no repair of the capsule, no identification of the TAL and all received a 28-mm-diameter head. Our primary outcome is the rate of early hip dislocation and we hypothesised that we can reduce the rate of early hip dislocation with this new regime. RESULTS: In Group B there were no early dislocations (within 6 months) and two (0.5 %) dislocations within 18 months; minimum follow-up time was 18 months with a range of (18-96 months). This compared to a 1.8 % early dislocation rate and a 2.6 % rate at 18 months in Group A; minimum follow-up time was 60 months with a range of (60-112 months). These results were statistically significant (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: We suggest that when primary hip arthroplasty is performed through a posterior approach, a low early dislocation rate can be achieved using the described methods.