The interpretation of metal ion concentrations and their role in clinical management of patients with metal-on-metal implants is still controversial. We questioned whether patients undergoing hip resurfacing with no clinical problems could be differentiated from those with clinical (pain, loss of function) and/or radiographic (component malpositioning, migration, bone loss), problems based on metal ion levels, and if there was a threshold metal level that predicted the need for clinical intervention. Furthermore, we asked if patient and implant factors differed between these functional groups. We retrospectively identified 453 unilateral and 139 bilateral patients with ion measurements at minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 4.3 years; range, 1–12.9 years). Patients were designated as well functioning or poorly functioning based on strict criteria. The acceptable upper levels within the well-functioning group were determined from the 75th percentile plus 1.5× interquartile range. The sensitivity and specificity of these levels to predict clinical problems were calculated. Well-functioning group ions were lower than the poorly functioning group ion levels. The acceptable upper levels were: chromium (Cr) 4.6 μg/L, cobalt (Co) 4.0 μg/L unilateral and Cr 7.4 μg/L, Co 5.0 μg/L bilateral. The specificity of these levels in predicting poor function was high (95%) and sensitivity was low (25%). There were more males in the well-functioning group and more females and smaller femoral components in the poorly functioning group. Metal levels higher than these proposed safe upper limits can predict problems with metal-on-metal resurfacings and are important parameters in the management of at-risk patients. Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Pseudotumours are a rare complication of hip resurfacing. They are thought to be a response to metal debris which may be caused by edge loading due to poor orientation of the acetabular component. Our aim was to determine the optimal acetabular orientation to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation.We matched 31 hip resurfacings revised for pseudotumour formation with 58 controls who had a satisfactory outcome from this procedure. The radiographic inclination and anteversion angles of the acetabular component were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis using Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse software. The mean inclination angle (47°, 10° to 81°) and anteversion angle (14°, 4° to 34°) of the pseudotumour cases were the same (p = 0.8, p = 0.2) as the controls, 46° (29° to 60°) and 16° (4° to 30°) respectively, but the variation was greater. Assuming an accuracy of implantation of ± 10° about a target position, the optimal radiographic position was found to be approximately 45° of inclination and 20° of anteversion. The incidence of pseudotumours inside the zone was four times lower (p = 0.007) than outside the zone.In order to minimise the risk of pseudotumour formation we recommend that surgeons implant the acetabular component at an inclination of 45° (± 10) and anteversion of 20° (± 10) on post-operative radiographs. Because of differences between the radiographic and the operative angles, this may be best achieved by aiming for an inclination of 40° and an anteversion of 25°.

Aims Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed all DAIRs, performed for confirmed infected primary hip arthropasty (n = 82) at out institution, between 1997 and 2013. Data recorded included full patient information and type of surgery. Outcome measures included complications, mortality, implant survivorship and functional outcome. Outcome was compared with two control groups matched for gender and age; a cohort of primary THAs (n = 120) and a cohort of two-stage revisions for infection (n = 66). Results Mean age at DAIR was 69 years (33 to 87) and mean follow-up was eight years (2 to 17; standard deviation (sd) 5). A total of 52 (63%) of DAIRs were for early PJI (less than six weeks). Greater success in the eradication of infection with DAIR was identified with early PJI, comprising an interval less than a week between onset of symptoms and exchange of modular components with the DAIR procedure. Eradication of infection, complications and re-operation rates were similar in the DAIR and two-stage revision groups. For hips with successful eradication of infection with DAIR, the five-year survival (98%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94 to 100) was similar to the primary THA group (98%; 95% CI 95 to 100) (n = 43; p = 0.3). The DAIR group had inferior mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) (38; 12 to 48) compared with the primary THA group (42; 15 to 48) (p = 0.02) but a significantly better mean OHS compared with the two-stage revision group (31; 0 to 48) (p = 0.008). Patients who required only one DAIR for eradication of infection had a similar mean OHS (41; 20 to 48) to the primary THA group (p = 0.2). Conclusion The DAIR procedure is associated with a similar complication rate and ability to eradicate infection as two-stage revision. This study emphasises the need for exchange of modular components for improved chances of eradication of infection. This is the first study showing that DAIR is better than a two-stage revision regarding functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:614–22.