Even in a well-functioning total hip replacement, significant peri-implant bone resorption can occur secondary to stress shielding. Stress shielding is caused by an undesired mismatch of elastic modulus between the stiffer implant and the adjacent bone tissue. To address this problem, we present here a microarchitected hip implant that consists of a three-dimensional (3D) graded lattice material with properties that are mechanically biocompatible with those of the femoral bone. Asymptotic homogenization (AH) is used to numerically determine the mechanical and fatigue properties of the implant, and a gradient-free scheme of topology optimization is used to find the optimized relative density distribution of the porous implant under multiple constraints dictated by implant micromotion, pore size, porosity, and minimum manufacturable thickness of the cell elements. Obtained for a 38-year-old patient femur, bone resorption is assessed by the difference in strain energy between the implanted bone and the intact bone in the postoperative conditions. The numerical results suggest that bone loss for the optimized porous implant is only 42% of that of a fully solid implant, here taken as benchmark, and 79% of that of a porous implant with uniform density. The architected hip implant presented in this work shows clinical promise in reducing bone loss while preventing implant micromotion, thereby contributing to reduce the risk of periprosthetic fracture and the probability of revision surgery.

Background: There is ongoing debate concerning the best method of femoral fixation in older patients receiving primary THA. Clinical studies have shown high survivorship for cemented and cementless femoral stems. Arthroplasty registry studies, however, have universally shown that cementless stems are associated with a higher rate of revision in this patient population. It is unclear if the difference in revision rate is a reflection of the range of implants being used for these procedures rather than the mode of fixation. Questions/purposes: (1) Is the risk of revision higher in patients older than 75 years of age who receive one of the three cementless stems with the highest overall survivorship in the registry than in those of that age who received one of the three best-performing cemented stems? If so, is there a difference in risk of early revision versus late revision, defined as revision within 1 month after index surgery? (2) Are there any diagnoses (such as osteoarthritis [OA] or femoral neck hip fracture) in which the three best-performing cementless stems had better survivorship than one of the three best-performing cementless stems? (3) Do these findings change when evaluated by patient sex? Methods: The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data were used to identify the best three cemented and the best three cementless femoral stems. The criteria for selection were the lowest 10-year revision rate and use in > 1000 procedures in this age group of patients regardless of primary diagnosis. The outcome measure was time to first revision using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. Comparisons were made for THAs done for any reason and then specifically for OA and femoral neck fracture separately. Results: Overall, the cumulative percent revision in the first 3 months postoperatively was lower among those treated with one of the three best-performing cemented stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems (hazard ratio [HR] for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 3.47 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.60-7.53], p = 0.001). Early revision was 9.14 times more common in the best three cementless stems than in the best three cemented stems (95% CI, 5.54-15.06, p = 0.001). Likewise, among patients with OA and femoral neck fracture, the cumulative percent revision was consistently higher at 1 month postoperatively among those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems (OA: HR for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 8.82 [95% CI, 5.08-15.31], p < 0.001; hip fracture: HR for best 3 cementless versus best three cemented = 27.78 [95% CI, 1.39-143.3], p < 0.001). Overall, the cumulative percent revision was lower in the three best cemented stem group than the three best cementless stem group for both males and females at 1 month postoperatively (male: HR = 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.92], p = 0.030; female: HR = 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03-0.10], p < 0.001) and for females at 3 months postoperatively (HR = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06-0.33], p < 0.001), after which there was no difference. Conclusions: Cementless femoral stem fixation in patients 75 years or older is associated with a higher early rate of revision, even when only the best-performing prostheses used in patients in this age group were compared. Based on this review of registry data, it would seem important to ensure the proper training of contemporary cementing techniques for the next generation of arthroplasty surgeons so they are able to use this option when required. However, the absence of a difference in the two groups undergoing THA after 3 months suggests that there can be a role for cementless implants in selected cases, depending on the surgeon’s expertise and the quality and shape of the proximal femoral bone. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Orthopaedic surgery is characterized by surgical tasks that are physical, repetitive and require some degree of stamina from the surgeon. Occupational injuries are alarmingly common in orthopaedic surgery with two-thirds of all surgeons reporting a work-related musculoskeletal (MSK) injury during their career. One of the leading causes of the high level of MSK injuries among orthopaedic surgeon is lack of ergonomics of the operating room. Implementing an ergonomic process has been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of developing MSK disorders in other high-risk industries. We reviewed well-established and effective ergonomic guidelines from the industrial workplace and determined the pertinent principles that could be transferred to the operating room to help reduce the number and severity of common orthopaedic work-related MSK injuries. We reviewed the ergonomic guidelines, primarily from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), that specifically address minimizing the risk of these work-related injuries and that are transferable to the operating room. In addition, the ergonomic guidelines from the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were reviewed. Many of the guidelines to avoid work-related injuries in industry are transferable to the operating room. The pertinent guidelines clearly indicated how to adjust the height of the operating table, the proper design of hand and power tools and the modifications to the operating room environment that can help prevent injury. These guidelines from industry include maintaining a neutral posture and joint alignment, working with the appropriate hand tools and minimizing the lower extremity fatigue by using the proper footwear and floor mats. Optimizing the occupational environment and utilizing well-established ergonomic principle from industry is both feasible and practical in the operating room to decrease the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries among this high-risk profession. These guidelines are simple, effective and are easy to implement by orthopaedic surgeons in order to minimize their risk of sustaining a work-related injury.

Background: The implementation of care pathways in hip arthroplasty programs has been shown to result in a decreased length of stay (LOS), but often multiple elements of a care pathway are implemented at the same time. As a result, it is difficult to understand the impact each of the individual modifications has made to the patient’s prepathway care. In particular, it is unknown what the role of patient expectations pertaining to anticipated LOS alone is on the LOS after primary THA. Questions/purposes: (1) Does changing the patient’s expectations regarding his or her anticipated LOS, without intentionally changing the rest of the care pathway, result in a change in the patient’s LOS after primary THA? (2) Is the resultant LOS associated with the patient’s age, gender, or day of the week the surgery was performed? Methods: We retrospectively compared the LOS in 100 consecutive patients undergoing THA immediately after the implementation of a 4-day care pathway (4-day Group) with 100 consecutive patients, 3 months later, who were also in the same pathway but were told by their surgeon preoperatively and in the hospital to expect a LOS of 2 days (2-day Group). Aside from reeducation by the surgeon, there was no difference in the surgery or intentional changes to the intraoperative or postoperative management of the two groups. Only the patient and the surgeon were made aware of the accelerated discharge plan. We compared the LOS between the two groups and the number of patients who met their discharge goal. As well, the ability to meet the discharge goal for each group was further determined based on age, gender, and day of the week the surgery was performed. Results: Overall, patients in the 2-day Group had a shorter LOS than those in the 4-day Group (2.9 ± 0.88 days versus 3.9 ± 1.71 days; mean difference 1 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.36; p = 0.001). In the 2-day Group, the LOS was 2 days in 32% compared with 8% in the 4-day Group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.76-9.11; p < 0.001). Men in the 4-day Group had a shorter LOS than women (3.4 ± 1.22 days versus 4.2 ± 1.89 days; mean difference 0.8 days; 95% CI, 0.17-1.78; p = 0.019), but there was no difference in LOS by gender in the 2-day Group (2.8 ± 0.81 days versus 3.1 ± 0.93 days; mean difference 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.61; p = 0.219). For all patients > 40 years and < 90 years of age, a greater percentage of patients in the 2-day Group went home by postoperative day 2 than those in the 4-day Group (32% compared with 7%; odds ratio, 4.6; p < 0.001). In both groups, there was no difference in the LOS if the surgery was on Friday compared with an earlier day of the week (4-day Group: 3.4 ± 0.67 days versus 4.0 ± 1.80 days; p = 0.477 and 2-day Group: 2.8 ± 0.62 days versus 3.0 ± 0.93 days; p = 0.547). Conclusions: We found that a surgeon who sets a clear expectation in terms of LOS could achieve a reduction in this parameter. Although it is impossible to be certain in the context of a retrospective study whether other caregivers adjusted the pathway in response to the surgeon’s preferences, and we suspect this probably did occur, this still points to an opportunity on the topic of expectations setting that future studies should explore. This study highlights the influence patient education and expectations has on the effectiveness of care pathways in THA as well as the importance of continuous reinforcement of discharge planning both preoperatively and in the hospital. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biological fixation of a 3D printed porous implant, with and without different hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings, in a canine model. Materials and Methods: A canine transcortical model was used to evaluate the characteristics of bone ingrowth of Ti6Al4V cylindrical implants fabricated using laser rapid manufacturing (LRM). At four and 12 weeks post-implantation, we performed histological analysis and mechanical push-out testing on three groups of implants: a HA-free control (LRM), LRM with precipitated HA (LRM-PA), and LRM with plasma-sprayed HA (LRM-PSHA). Results: Substantial bone ingrowth was observed in all LRM implants, with and without HA, at both time periods. Bone ingrowth increased from 42% to 52% at four weeks, to 60% to 65% at 12 weeks. Mechanical tests indicated a minimum shear fixation strength of 20 MPa to 24 MPa at four weeks, and 34 MPa to 40 MPa at 12 weeks. There was no significant difference in the amount of bone ingrowth or in the shear strength between the three implant types at either time period. Conclusion: At four and 12 weeks, the 3D printed porous implants exhibited consistent bone ingrowth and high mechanical shear strength. Based on the results of this study, we confirmed the suitability of this novel new additive manufacturing porous material for biological fixation by bone ingrowth. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):62–67.

Intra-articular osteoid osteoma (OO) causes irreversible joint damage. Its treatment of choice is radiofrequency ablation (RFA); however, some areas of the acetabulum are hard to access. Therefore, hip arthroscopy was used to treat this tumor. We aim to systematically review the literature with regards to arthroscopic management of acetabular OO, and to report a further case in which hip arthroscopy was used for treatment. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles relevant to the arthroscopic management of acetabular OO on December 2, 2014. All articles published on and before that date were reviewed, and studies which met our pre-determined inclusion criteria were included. Articles screening and data abstraction were done by two reviewers independently. We also presented a 31-year-old man with acetabular OO who underwent hip arthroscopy for the management of his tumor after failing to respond to medications and computed tomography scan (CT)-guided RFA. The initial search revealed 14 studies, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. A total of ten patients underwent hip arthroscopy for the management of acetabular OO. Only two patients were females, and the patients' age ranged from 7 to 47 years. Two patients underwent arthroscopic guided-RFA of the lesion, while the rest underwent excision. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 2 years. Success rate was 100 %, and no recurrence was reported. Minor complications (transient impotence and perineal numbness) developed in one patient (10 %). Arthroscopic-guided RFA failed to eliminate the tumor in our additional case. A second trial of CT-guided RFA was successful in treating the patient's condition. Hip arthroscopy is an effective and safe option for the management of acetabular OO, with success rate exceeding 90 %. Studies of higher level of evidence are required.