Background Pelvic radiographs are helpful in assessing limb-length discrepancy (LLD) before and after THA but are subject to variation. Different methods are used to determine LLDs. As a pelvic reference, both ischial tuberosities and the teardrops are used, and as a femoral reference, the lesser trochanter and center of the femoral head are used. Questions/purposes We validated the different methods for preoperative radiographic measurement of LLDs and evaluated their reliability. Patients and Methods LLDs were measured on full-leg radiographs for 52 patients (29 men, 23 women) with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and compared with different methods for measuring LLDs on AP radiographs of the pelvis. Results The true LLD varied from À8.0 to 9.1 mm. When the biischial line was used as a pelvic reference, the LLD measured on AP pelvis radiographs was different from the true LLD. No difference was found when the interteardrop line was used as a pelvic reference. There was substantial interobserver agreement when the lesser trochanter was used as a femoral reference (kappa = 0.66-0.70) and excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement for all other measurements (kappa = 0.84-0.93). Conclusions Our data show use of the biischial line as a pelvic reference should be discouraged and the interteardrop line is a better alternative. The center of the femoral head is a more reliable femoral landmark compared with the lesser trochanter. Level of Evidence Level I, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.

No abstract