SummaryBackgroundFemoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.MethodsUK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment.FindingsBetween July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7–12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of the...

Background and purpose One of the greatest problems of revision hip arthroplasty is dealing with lost bone stock. Good results have been obtained with impaction grafting of allograft bone. However, there have been problems of infection, reproducibility, antigenicity, stability, availability of bone, and cost. Thus, alternatives to allograft have been sought. BoneSave is a biphasic porous ceramic specifically designed for use in impaction grafting. BoneSave is 80% tricalcium phosphate and 20% hydroxyapatite. Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have yielded good results using mixtures of allograft and BoneSave, when compared with allograft alone. This study is the first reported human clinical trial of BoneSave in impaction grafting.Methods We performed a single-institution, multi-surgeon, prospective cohort study. 43 consecutive patients underwent revision hip arthroplasty using BoneSave and allograft to restore missing bone in the acetabulum. 9 patients had cemented acetabular components implanted and 34 uncemented. 10 patients had cemented femoral components implanted and 1 had an uncemented femoral component. 32 patients did not have their femoral component revised.Results No patients were lost to follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 (11–48) months, there were no re-revisions and there was no implant migration. 1 acetabular component had confluent lucent lines at the implant-graft interface. Complications were rare (1 fracture, 2 dislocations). Patient satisfaction with the procedure was high.Interpretation Short-term results indicate that impaction grafting of BoneSave and allograft is an effective method of dealing with loss of bone stock at revision hip surgery.

We compared the medium-term clinical and radiological results of hybrid total hip replacement (THR) with metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) in two groups of 54 young patients matched for age, gender, body mass index and pre-operative levels of activity. The clinical outcome was assessed by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the EuroQol scores. Radiologically, all hips were assessed for migration and osteolysis, the hybrid THRs for polyethylene wear and the BHRs for a pedestal sign. The mean follow-up of the patients with a hybrid THR was ten years and for those with a BHR, nine years. Four patients with a hybrid THR and one with a BHR had died. In each group five were lost to follow-up. The revision rate of the hybrid THRs was 16.7% (9 of 54) and of the BHRs 9.3% (5 of 54) (p = 0.195). Radiographs of a further eight hybrid THRs demonstrated wear and osteolysis, and they await revision (p = 0.008). Of the unrevised BHRs 90% had radiological changes, of which approximately 50% had progressed over the previous four years. All hybrid THRs demonstrated linear polyethylene wear with a mean of 1.24 mm (0.06 to 3.03). The BHRs recorded superior OHS (p = 0.013), UCLA (p = 0.008), and EuroQol visual analogue scores (p = 0.009). After nine years, patients with BHRs remained more active and had a lower rate of revision than those with hybrid THRs. Both groups demonstrated progressive radiological changes at medium-term follow-up.

We compared the five- to seven-year clinical and radiological results of the metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing with a hybrid total hip arthroplasty in two groups of 54 hips, matched for gender, age, body mass index and activity level. Function was excellent in both groups, as measured by the Oxford hip score, but the Birmingham hip resurfacings had higher University of California at Los Angeles activity scores and better EuroQol quality of life scores. The total hip arthroplasties had a revision or intention-to-revise rate of 8%, and the Birmingham hip resurfacings of 6%. Both groups demonstrated impending failure on surrogate end-points. Of the total hip arthroplasties, 12% had polyethylene wear and osteolysis under observation, and 8% of Birmingham hip resurfacings showed migration of the femoral component. Polyethylene wear was present in 48% of the hybrid hips without osteolysis. Of the femoral components in the Birmingham hip resurfacing group which had not migrated, 66% had radiological changes of unknown significance.