I now have comprehensive data from multiple authoritative sources. Let me compile the complete THR protocol answer.
Total Hip Replacement (THR) Protocol
A comprehensive protocol for Total Hip Replacement (THR / Total Hip Arthroplasty, THA) covering indications, implant selection, surgical approach, perioperative management, and complications.
1. Indications
THR is indicated when hip pathology causes significant pain and functional disability that has failed conservative management. Common indications include:
- Osteoarthritis (primary and secondary) - the most frequent indication
- Rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis
- Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head
- Displaced femoral neck fractures (in the elderly or physiologically frail)
- Post-traumatic arthritis
- Dysplastic hip disease
- Ankylosing spondylitis
- Failed previous hip procedures (e.g., hemiarthroplasty, internal fixation)
Over 95,000 primary THRs are performed annually in the UK alone. With evidence-based technique and prosthesis selection, over 95% of patients have a well-functioning THR at 10 years, and 85% remain functional at 20 years - [Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery, 28th Ed](p. 581).
2. Components and Design Principles
An ideal joint replacement must be:
- Biocompatible and inert
- Well fixed to host tissue
- Allow good range of movement and stability
- Minimize wear particles (to prevent osteolysis)
- Release non-toxic materials
- Remove the minimum amount of bone (to allow future revision)
- Cost-effective and ideally outlive the patient
(Bailey and Love, 28th Ed, Summary Box 39.5)
Femoral Component Materials
Cobalt-chrome alloy, stainless steel, or titanium. Metal implants tolerate high loads and are relatively inert. Titanium is preferred for cementless stems; cobalt-chrome for cemented designs.
Bearing Surfaces (Table 39.6 - Bailey and Love)
| Bearing Type | Advantages | Disadvantages | Best For |
|---|
| Metal-on-polyethylene | Proven; cheap | High wear; osteolysis risk | Age >70 years |
| Ceramic-on-polyethylene | Lower wear rate | Expensive; fracture risk | Age <70 years (UHMWPE preferred) |
| Metal-on-metal | Low wear rate | Metal ion release; ARMD; recalls | Select young males only (head >48 mm) |
| Ceramic-on-ceramic | Lowest wear rate (delta ceramics) | Expensive; squeaking; fracture risk | High-functioning young patients |
UHMWPE = ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. Highly cross-linked PE stays below the osteolytic threshold even with large heads (≥36 mm). - [Miller's Review of Orthopaedics, 9th Ed](p. 11653)
3. Fixation Method
| Method | Component | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|
| Cemented | Femur | Proven results; works in osteoporotic/poor bone; lower periprosthetic fracture rate | Exothermic reaction; cement fragments cause wear; difficult to revise |
| Cemented | Acetabulum | Cheap; useful in osteoporotic bone | Higher shear forces; earlier failure |
| Cementless | Femur | No cement; biological/dynamic fixation | Perfect fit required; risk of intraop fracture; expensive |
| Cementless | Acetabulum | Gold standard; can be augmented with screws | Improper technique risks acetabular fracture |
Key principles for cementless fixation:
- Requires: live host bone + appropriate ingrowth surface + initial rigid fixation
- Hydroxyapatite coating shortens time to biologic fixation
- Motion within bone leads to fibrous encapsulation instead of osseointegration
- Femoral stress shielding results from modulus mismatch between stem and femoral bone
Current preference: Cementless fixation is preferred for the acetabular component. Cemented fixation is preferred for the femoral component in patients with poor bone quality or femoral neck fractures. - [Miller's Review of Orthopaedics, 9th Ed](p. 11613-11614)
4. Surgical Approaches
(Table 39.8 - Bailey and Love; Schwartz's Principles of Surgery, 11th Ed)
| Approach | Anatomical Interval | Key Notes |
|---|
| Posterior (Kocher-Langenbach) | Along gluteus maximus fibres; short external rotators divided | Most common; higher dislocation rate unless posterior capsule repaired (0.5% with soft tissue repair) |
| Anterolateral / Hardinge | Parts of gluteus medius and minimus reflected off greater trochanter | Good stability; risk of abductor weakness (Trendelenburg) |
| Anterior (Smith-Petersen / DAA) | Between sartorius/TFL (superficially) and rectus femoris/gluteus medius (deep); truly internervous | Supine positioning; fluoroscopy use; 1 week earlier ambulation; BUT higher femoral fracture/loosening rate and wound complications |
| Trochanteric osteotomy | Greater trochanter osteotomized | Extended access; rarely used as primary approach; still useful in revision |
Note: No clear difference in patient outcomes between approaches overall. The direct anterior approach carries a higher rate of femoral complications (fracture, loosening); the posterior approach carries higher dislocation risk. - [Miller's Review of Orthopaedics, 9th Ed](p. 11609)
5. Perioperative Protocol
Preoperative
- Patient optimization (medical comorbidities, BMI, nutritional status)
- Blood management: patient blood management programs including erythropoietin and intraoperative blood salvage, especially for elective THR
- Antibiotic prophylaxis planning (e.g., cefazolin within 60 min of incision)
- Templating: restore correct offset, center of rotation, and leg length
Intraoperative
- Antibiotic prophylaxis: perioperative antibiotics are a key part of infection prevention, alongside strict aseptic technique in theatre - [Bailey and Love, 28th Ed](p. 581)
- Reproduce patient's anatomy: correct offset, center of rotation, component orientation, leg length restoration
- Intraoperative radiographs/fluoroscopy (especially with anterior approach) to verify implant position
Postoperative
- Hospital stay: typically 2-3 days; day-case THR is performed in select centers
- Physiotherapy: early mobilization to avoid dislocation-prone movements, especially for the first 6 weeks
- Occupational therapy: home assessment prior to discharge; raised toilet seat, grab rails, etc.
- Radiographs: mandatory post-op to confirm implant alignment/orientation and exclude iatrogenic fracture
- Follow-up: outpatient review at 6 weeks and 1 year post-surgery
6. VTE Prophylaxis
DVT is relatively common after THR if no precautions are taken; PE can be fatal. Prevention protocol includes:
- Adequate hydration
- Regional anaesthesia (reduces VTE risk vs. general anaesthesia)
- Early mobilization
- Mechanical devices: TED stockings, foot pumps, intermittent pneumatic calf compression
- Chemical thromboprophylaxis (continued for 4-6 weeks post-op):
- Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)
- Warfarin
- Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs - e.g., rivaroxaban, apixaban)
(Follow local/national guidelines for specific agents and duration) - [Bailey and Love, 28th Ed](p. 581)
7. Complications
(Table 39.9 - Bailey and Love, 28th Ed; Schwartz's Principles of Surgery, 11th Ed)
Intraoperative
- Nerve injury (sciatic, femoral, obturator nerves; most commonly deep peroneal nerve - foot drop)
- Vascular injury (femoral vein/artery)
- Femoral or acetabular fracture
- Cement fragments left in joint
Postoperative
| Complication | Notes |
|---|
| Infection | Early = haematogenous; late = low-grade (S. epidermidis within biofilm); thorough assessment needed |
| DVT/PE | Common without prophylaxis; potentially fatal |
| Dislocation | Most common after posterior approach; due to malpositioned components, noncompliance, neuromuscular issues |
| Leg length discrepancy | Unique to THR; prevented by careful templating |
| Heterotopic ossification | Ectopic bone formation around implant |
| Aseptic/Septic loosening | Aseptic: particle-induced osteolysis via macrophage RANKL-mediated bone resorption; start-up pain = most common initial presentation |
| Osteolysis | PE wear particles phagocytized by macrophages → RANKL → osteoclast activation |
| Implant fracture/failure | Femoral stem: cantilever bending; requires revision |
| Iliopsoas impingement/tendonitis | Unique to THR |
| Stress shielding | Proximal bone loss from modulus mismatch |
Dislocation Management
- Closed reduction under conscious sedation (traction/manipulation) - usually successful
- Recurrent dislocation + malpositioned components → component revision
- Recurrent dislocation + well-positioned components → larger femoral head, dual-mobility construct, or constrained THA - [Schwartz's, 11th Ed](p. 519)
8. Revision THR Indications
Revision is required for:
- Symptomatic implant loosening (aseptic or septic)
- Recurrent dislocations
- Periprosthetic fracture
- Femoral prosthesis fracture
- Significant osteolysis/polyethylene wear
Most femoral revisions use cementless, diaphysis-engaging implants (tapered fluted modular titanium stems). Acetabular revision with porous hemispheric cup + multiple screws handles the majority of cases. Severe bone loss may require modular metal constructs, cup-cage constructs, or custom triflange cups. - [Miller's Review of Orthopaedics, 9th Ed](p. 11630-11640)
Sources:
- Bailey and Love's Short Practice of Surgery, 28th Ed, Ch. 39 (pp. 580-582)
- Schwartz's Principles of Surgery, 11th Ed, Ch. 43 (pp. 1934-1938)
- Miller's Review of Orthopaedics, 9th Ed, Section 5-7 (pp. 11608-11660)
- Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics, 15th Ed 2026
- Rockwood and Green's Fractures in Adults, 10th Ed 2025