Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of dislocation mechanism in dual mobility total hip arthroplasty constructs

The Surgical Approach Impacts Component Selection in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study of 7,460 Hips

BACKGROUND

A higher risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported for the posterior approach (PA) compared to the anterior approach (AA). Dual mobility implants, larger head sizes, and elevated or face-changing liners can reduce the risk for dislocation. It remains unclear whether the component selection is influenced by the surgical approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 7,048 patients who underwent 7,460 primary THA with either AA or PA for primary hip osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis of the femoral head between 2019 and 2021. A propensity score model based on age, body mass index, height, and American Association of Anesthesiologists Score was applied. There were 2,502 AA-THA matched with 4,958 PA-THA (2,456 1:2, and 46 1:1). Groups were compared with multiple linear regression analyses/multivariate logistic regressions after controlling for American Association of Anesthesiologists Score and body mass index. In a second step, only hips operated by surgeons using both approaches were matched 1:1 (1,204 PA and AA, respectively). The same statistics were performed after controlling for "surgeon".

RESULTS

The PA was associated with a more frequent use of dual mobility implants, elevated liners, face-changing liners, as well as heads with 36 mm or larger diameters, and the implanted cups were significantly larger (P < .001, respectively). These findings were consistent for both matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach impacts the component selection in THA. Patients undergoing PA-THA are more likely to receive implants with larger head size or stabilizing features compared to AA-THA.

Defining the optimal position of the lipped liner in combination with cup orientation and stem version

Aims

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal lip position for total hip arthroplasties (THAs) using a lipped liner. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal position, with substantial variability in surgeon practice.

Methods

A model of a THA was developed using a 20° lipped liner. Kinematic analyses included a physiological range of motion (ROM) analysis and a provocative dislocation manoeuvre analysis. ROM prior to impingement was calculated and, in impingement scenarios, the travel distance prior to dislocation was assessed. The combinations analyzed included nine cup positions (inclination 30-40-50°, anteversion 5-15-25°), three stem positions (anteversion 0-15-30°), and five lip orientations (right hip 7 to 11 o'clock).

Results

The position of the lip changes the ROM prior to impingement, with certain combinations leading to impingement within the physiological ROM. Inferior lip positions (7 to 8 o'clock) performed best with cup inclinations of 30° and 40°. Superior lip positions performed best with cup inclination of 50°. When impingement occurs in the plane of the lip, the lip increases the travel distance prior to dislocation. Inferior lip positions led to the largest increase in jump distance in a posterior dislocation provocation manoeuvre.

Conclusion

The lip orientation that provides optimal physiological ROM depends on the orientation of the cup and stem. For a THA with stem anteversion 15°, cup inclination 40°, and cup anteversion 15°, the optimal lip position was posterior-inferior (8 o'clock). Maximizing jump distance prior to dislocation while preventing impingement in the opposite direction is possible with appropriate lip positioning.

Outcome and risk factors of failures associated with revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Spine Fusions, Yoga Instructors, and Hip Fractures: The Role of Dual Mobility in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased use of dual mobility (DM) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), debate exists regarding the indications for its use. No specific algorithm exists to guide this decision-making process. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarize the currently available literature regarding the use of DM in primary THA and provide evidence-based guidelines based on specific patient populations and risk factors for instability.

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature for studies evaluating risk factors for dislocation in primary THA, as well as the clinical use and results of DM in primary THA. Based on the strength of the literature, we discuss the use of DM in specific patient populations. We provide a decision-making algorithm to determine whether a patient may be indicated for DM in primary THA.

RESULTS

Surgeons should consider preoperative patient demographics, risk factors for instability (eg, significant hip-spine issues), type of procedure to be performed (eg, conversion arthroplasty), and indications for surgery (eg, THA for femoral neck fracture). Based on this algorithmic assessment, DM may be warranted in the primary THA setting if a patient's combined risk reaches an established threshold based on the literature.

CONCLUSION

This evidence-based algorithm may help guide current practice in the use of DM in primary THA. We advocate the continued judicious use of DM in hip arthroplasty. Longer term studies are needed in order to evaluate the durability of DM, as well as any complications related to the DM articulation.