Dislocation and its recurrence after revision total hip arthroplasty

The outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for instability

Aims

Instability is a common indication for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, even after the initial revision, some patients continue to have recurrent dislocation. The aim of this study was to assess the risk for recurrent dislocation after revision THA for instability.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2019, 163 patients underwent revision THA for instability at Stanford University Medical Center. Of these, 33 (20.2%) required re-revision due to recurrent dislocation. Cox proportional hazard models, with death and re-revision surgery for periprosthetic infection as competing events, were used to analyze the risk factors, including the size and alignment of the components. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to assess the outcome using the Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical and VR-12 mental scores, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) pain and function, and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome score for Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR).

Results

The median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range 2.0 to 5.1). The one-year cumulative incidence of recurrent dislocation after revision was 8.7%, which increased to 18.8% at five years and 31.9% at ten years postoperatively. In multivariable analysis, a high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (hazard ratio (HR) 2.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 6.60)), BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m2 (HR 4.31 (95% CI 1.52 to 12.27)), the use of specialized liners (HR 5.39 (95% CI 1.97 to 14.79) to 10.55 (95% CI 2.27 to 49.15)), lumbopelvic stiffness (HR 6.03 (95% CI 1.80 to 20.23)), and postoperative abductor weakness (HR 7.48 (95% CI 2.34 to 23.91)) were significant risk factors for recurrent dislocation. Increasing the size of the acetabular component by > 1 mm significantly decreased the risk of dislocation (HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.96)). The VR-12 physical and HHS (pain and function) scores improved significantly at mid term.

Conclusion

Patients requiring revision THA for instability are at risk of recurrent dislocation. Higher ASA grades, being overweight, a previous lumbopelvic fusion, the use of specialized liners, and postoperative abductor weakness are significant risk factors.

One-year unplanned readmission after total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: rate, causes, and risk factors

BACKGROUND

The primary objectives of this study were to focus on one - year unplanned readmissions after THA in ONFH patients and to investigate rates, causes, and independent risk factors.

METHODS

Between October 2014 and April 2019, eligible patients undergoing THA were enrolled and divided into unplanned readmission within one year and no readmission in this study. All unplanned readmissions within 1 year of discharge were reviewed for causes and the rate of unplanned readmissions was calculated. Demographic information, ONFH characteristics, and treatment-related variables of both groups were compared and analysed.

RESULTS

Finally, 41 out of 876 patients experienced unplanned readmission. The readmission rate was 1.83% in 30 days 2.63% in 90 days, and 4.68% in 1 year. Prosthesis dislocation was always the most common cause at all time points studied within a year. The final logistic regression model revealed that higher risks of unplanned readmission were associated with age > 60 years (P = 0.001), urban residence (P = 0.001), ARCO stage IV (P = 0.025), and smoking (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the introduction of a strict smoking cessation program prior to surgery and the development of comprehensive management strategies, especially for the elderly and end-stage ONFH patients, and pay more attention to preventing prosthesis dislocation in the early days after surgery.

A Comparison of Radiographic Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty between the Direct Lateral Approach and Posterior Lateral Approach with EOS 2D/3D X-Ray Imaging System

OBJECTIVE

The classical approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are the direct lateral approach (DLA) and posterior lateral approach (PLA). There are few studies comparing implant orientation with these two approaches, and the impact of surgical approaches on implant orientation remains controversial. With the rise of the EOS imaging system, we aimed to use it to identify the differences between and factors associated with implant orientation after THA using DLA and PLA.

METHODS

In our department from January 2019 to December 2021, 321 primary unilateral THAs that used PLA and DLA were enrolled. A total of 201 patients who received PLA and 120 patients who received DLA were included in this study. Two blinded observers measured each case using EOS imaging data. Postoperative imaging metrics and other relevant influencing factors of the two surgical approaches were compared. Postoperative imaging metrics, including the anteversion and inclination of the cup, anteversion of the stem, and combined anteversion were measured based on EOS. Other relevant influencing factors included age, approach, gender, laterality, BMI, anterior pelvic plane inclination, femoral head diameter, femoral offset, lateral pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvis axial rotation, sacral slope, sagittal pelvic tilt, and surgery time. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the predictors of acceptability for each imaging data point.

RESULTS

No dislocation was found in the 321 patients who underwent primary THA during this period. The mean anteversion and combined anteversion of the cups using the DLA were 21.33° ± 17.31° (-51.7°-60.8°) and 33.71° ± 20.85° (-38.8°-77.6°) and PLA were 25.34° ± 12.76° (-5.5°-57.0°) and 42.37° ± 18.85° (-8.7°-84.7°), respectively. The DLA group had smaller anteversion (p = 0.038) and combined anteversion (p < 0.001). We found that surgical approach (p < 0.05), anterior pelvic plane inclination (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), and femoral head diameter (p < 0.001) were important factors affecting acetabular cup anteversion (R2  = 0.375) and combined anteversion (R2  = 0.525).

CONCLUSIONS

In total hip arthroplasty, different prosthesis installation directions should be made according to different surgical approaches. Compared with the direct lateral approach, the acetabular anteversion can be intentionally enlarged when using the posterolateral approach. Surgical approach, anterior pelvic plane inclination (APPI), gender, and femoral head diameter were significant predictors of prosthesis orientation. The anterior pelvic plane inclination may be a useful standard for assessing the position of the prosthesis using EOS.

Dual-Mobility Versus Large Femoral Heads in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Interim Analysis of A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluated if dual-mobility bearings (DM) lower the risk of dislocation compared to large femoral heads (≥36mm) for patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterior approach.

METHODS

A total of 146 Patients were randomized to a DM (n=76; 46 mm median effective head size, range 36 to 59 mm) or a large femoral head (n=70; twenty-five 36 mm heads [35.7%], forty-one 40 mm heads [58.6%], and four 44mm heads [5.7%]). There were 71 single-component revisions (48.6%), 39 both-component revisions (26.7%), 24 reimplantations of THA after 2-stage revision (16.4%), seven isolated head and liner exchanges (4.8%), four conversions of hemiarthroplasty (2.7%), and one revision of a hip resurfacing (0.7%). Power analysis determined that 161 patients were required in each group to lower the dislocation rate from 8.4 to 2.2% (power=0.8, alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

At a mean of 18.2 months (range, 1.4 to 48.2), there were three dislocations in the large femoral head group compared to two in the DM cohort (4.3 vs. 2.6%; P=0.67). One patient in the large head group and none in the DM group were successfully treated with closed reduction without subsequent revision.

CONCLUSION

Interim analysis of this randomized controlled trial found no difference in the risk of dislocation between DM and large femoral heads in revision THA, although the rate of dislocation was lower than anticipated and continued follow up is needed.

Prediction model for an early revision for dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several patient-related risk factors for dislocation have been reported in the previous literature, but only few prediction models for dislocation have been made. Our aim was to build a prediction model for an early (within the first 2 years) revision for dislocation after primary THA using two different statistical methods. The study data constituted of 37 pre- or perioperative variables and postoperative follow-up data of 16 454 primary THAs performed at our institution in 2008–2021. Model I was a traditional logistic regression model and Model II was based on the elastic net method that utilizes machine learning. The models’ overall performance was measured using the pseudo R² values. The discrimination of the models was measured using C-index in Model I and Area Under the Curve (AUC) in Model II. Calibration curves were made for both models. At 2 years postoperatively, 95 hips (0.6% prevalence) had been revised for dislocation. The pseudo R² values were 0.04 in Model I and 0.02 in Model II indicating low predictive capability in both models. The C-index in Model I was 0.67 and the AUC in Model II was 0.73 indicating modest discrimination. The prediction of an early revision for dislocation after primary THA is difficult even in a large cohort of patients with detailed data available because of the reasonably low prevalence and multifactorial nature of dislocation. Therefore, the risk of dislocation should be kept in mind in every primary THA, whether the patient has predisposing factors for dislocation or not. Further, when conducting a prediction model, sophisticated methods that utilize machine learning may not necessarily offer significant advantage over traditional statistical methods in clinical setup.

Outcomes of isolated head-liner exchange versus full acetabular component revision in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0-8.6) years.

RESULTS

In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62-3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40-6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87-5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94-4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.

Postoperative excessive external femoral rotation in revision total hip arthroplasty is associated with muscle weakness in iliopsoas and gluteus medius and risk for hip dislocation

Background

Excessive external femoral rotation (FR) can functionally increase stem anteversion (SA) and is often observed at an early stage after surgery in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study was conducted to investigate the prevalence of external FR, identify the factors associated with external FR, and determine the association of FR and other factors with hip dislocation in revision THA.

Methods

We enrolled 51 revision THA patients (55 hip cases). The patient background, angle of anatomical and functional SA, FR angle, sizes and densities of muscles around the hip joint, impingement distance, and consequence of postoperative hip dislocation were assessed by reviewing their medical history and imaging data that includes computed tomography (CT) scans before and after surgery.

Results

Forty-five hip cases (81.8%) showed external FR (mean 13.0°). External FR was significantly correlated with anatomical SA (r =  − 0.54) and increase in functional SA (r = 0.36), which was significantly correlated with impingement distance (r = 0.46). The independent factors associated with external FR in multivariate analysis were the anatomical SA, CT densities of the psoas, gluteus medius and maximus muscles, and 2-stage revision (R² = 0.559). During follow-up period, eight cases of revision THA showed hip dislocation. FR, functional SA, impingement distance, CT density of psoas and gluteus medius muscle, body mass index, number of past operation, and ratio of 2-stage revision THA were significantly different between cases with dislocation and non-dislocation. The odds ratio of FR and impingement distance for hip dislocation was identified as 1.061(95% confidence interval (CI): 1.011–1.114) and 0.901 (95% CI 0.820–0.991), respectively.

Conclusions

Revision THA frequently causes an external FR that functionally increases the SA and impingement risk, particularly in hips with 2-stage revision with psoas and gluteus medius muscle atrophy. Patients who have undergone revision THA and have an excessive external FR may require careful monitoring for possible hip dislocation due to hip joint instability and impingement.

Dual Mobility Bearing Articulations Result in Lower Rates of Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of our study is to directly compare the rates of instability after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) between a modular dual mobility (DM) and a conventional polyethylene single-bearing surface.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision THA from 2012 to 2016 at a single institution with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Rates of re-revision, dislocation, complications, and short-form (SF-12) scores were compared between the DM and single-bearing groups. To control for confounding variables, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 267 revision THA patients, 94 patients had a DM bearing articulation (36%), whereas 173 patients (64%) had a conventional single-bearing with a mean follow-up of 37.8 months (range 24 to 73 months). The DM group was more likely to undergo revision THA for instability compared with the single-bearing group (8.5% versus 1.2%, P ≤ 0.005) but had reduced incidence of postoperative dislocations (2.1% versus 8.7%, P = 0.067) and no difference in the rates of re-revisions (9.6% versus 11.6%, P = 0.770). When controlling for confounding variables, patients who received a DM liner had lower rates of dislocation postoperatively than those of single-bearing (odds ratio 0.12, P = 0.019).

DISCUSSION

Even with a selection bias of surgeons using DM for patients at high risk of instability, patients undergoing revision THA with a DM bearing have reduced rates of dislocation at the intermediate-term follow-up. Further study is needed to identify any potential longer-term complications which may result from a modular DM bearing.

Risk factors for radiological changes after bipolar hemiarthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to report the mid-term radiological outcomes of patients with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) for stage 3 osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), and to identify the risk factors for postoperative radiological changes.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 62 patients (38 men and 24 women; mean age, 50.1 years) aged <70 years who underwent primary BHA for Association Research Circulation Osseous stage 3 ONFH between 1998 and 2010. The mean follow-up period after BHA was 12.8 years. The following changes were assessed on follow-up radiographs: outer head migration, polyethylene wear, and femoral osteolysis. The association between demographic data and the development of postoperative radiological changes was evaluated.

RESULTS

Radiological changes were found in 20 hips (32.3%) at a mean of 8.1 years after BHA; of these, three hips (4.8%) underwent total hip arthroplasty conversion at a mean of 10.9 years after BHA. Both univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that younger age and female sex were independent risk factors for the development of postoperative radiological changes.

CONCLUSION

The current results suggest that the indication of BHA should be carefully determined in young or female patients with ONFH, even when the disease is in the early stage.

[Revision total hip arthroplasty : Significance of instability, impingement, offset and gluteal insufficiency]

BACKGROUND

Instability is a common cause of failure in primary and, especially, revision total hip arthroplasty. The reasons for instability include implant malpositioning, impingement, inadequate offset reconstruction, and gluteal insufficiency. Impingement following THA and revision THA is divided into prosthetic and bony impingement, and in addition to instability also causes pain in the area of the hip joint. Offset reconstruction during revision THA is of particular biomechanical importance, since insufficient reconstruction leads not only to instability and pain but also to dislocation. Abductor deficiency often occurs after revision THA and leads to a change in gait pattern, instability and pain.

AIM

Current diagnostic and treatment procedures for instability, impingement, insufficient offset reconstruction and abductor deficiency after THA and revision THA are summarized.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Diagnosis of an instable THA and painful THA includes patient history, physical examination and medical imaging. Thus, in almost all cases, the cause can be determined and treated. Dislocation after primary THA in the early postoperative period can often be treated conservatively if accurate component placement is observed, while a late-onset and recurrent dislocation after primary and revision THA usually needs surgical procedures. To avoid bony and prosthetic THA impingement intraoperative control is absolutely necessary. If possible, the offset reconstruction is based on the condition of the native hip joint and can be achieved by using modular prostheses, neck adapters and different head lengths. Abductor deficiency also occurs frequently after revision THA and can be treated surgically if severe clinical symptoms and fatty degeneration of the abductors have been diagnosed.

How to prevent dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the risk factors and a focus on treatment options

Background

Dislocation represents the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Understanding risk factors for dislocation has a great clinical relevance for every hip surgeon in order to consider all surgical options for effective planning. The aim of this systematic review was to answer two main questions—(1) what are the risk factors for instability after rTHA? and (2) what are the best preoperative assessments and surgical options to avoid dislocation after rTHA?

Materials and methods

Scientific databases were accessed to identify papers dealing with prevention and treatment of dislocation after rTHA. We performed a search using the keywords ‘revision hip arthroplasty’ and ‘dislocation’, ‘instability’, ‘outcome’, ‘failure’, ‘treatment’. After removal of duplicates and exclusion of works published in different languages, 33 articles were reviewed completely.

Results

Risk factors were analysed in order to establish the most relevant and evidence-based treatments available in the current literature.

Conclusions

The risk of dislocation after rTHA can be reduced using some precautions inferred from the literature. The use of a larger femoral and acetabular component, elevated rim liner and dual mobility implants can significantly reduce the risk of dislocation after rTHA. However, care must be taken regarding patient-related risk factors since these cannot be addressed and modified. Hence, a complete evaluation of risk factors should be performed for each patient and procedure before starting rTHA.

Soft tissue reinforcement with a Leeds-Keio artificial ligament in revision surgery for dislocated total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Since dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) greatly diminishes patient's quality of life, the THA frequently needs revision. However, it is common for the dislocation not to heal even after reconstruction, but rather to become intractable.

METHODS

The 17 patients with dislocated THA, mean age of 71 years (range 51-87 years), who underwent a revision THA together with soft tissue reinforcement with a Leeds-Keio (LK) ligament were enrolled. The purposes of reinforcement with LK ligament were to restrict the internal rotation of the hip joint, and to encourage the formation of fibrous tissue in the posterior acetabular wall to stabilise the femoral head. We determined the success rate of surgical treatment for dislocation, the Harris Hip Score (HHS), a factor of recurrent dislocation.

RESULTS

There was no recurrent dislocation in 82% of the cases (14 joints) during the mean postoperative follow-up period of 63.5 months (15-96 months). The HHS was 82 ± 18 points preoperatively and 82 ± 14 points postoperatively. Recurrent dislocation after this surgical procedure occurred in 2 hips with breakage of the LK ligaments, and intracapsular dislocation in 1 hip with loosening of the LK ligament.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the risk of recurrent dislocation still exists with this procedure, when performed to provide reinforcement with an LK ligament for dislocated THA it may be useful in intractable cases with soft tissue defects around the hip joint.

Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No formal systematic review or meta-analysis was performed up to now to summarize the risk factors of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty(THA).

AIMS

The present study aimed to quantitatively and comprehensively conclude the risk factors of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

A search was applied to CNKI, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane central database (all up to October 2016). All studies assessing the risk factors of dislocation after revision THA without language restriction were reviewed, and qualities of included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis completed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies were selected, which altogether included 4656 revision THAs. 421 of them were cases of dislocation occurred after surgery, suggesting the accumulated incidence of 9.04%. Results of meta-analyses showed that age at surgery (standardized mean difference -0.222; 95% CI -0.413-0.031), small-diameter femoral heads (≤28 mm) (OR 1.451; 95%CI 1.056-1.994), history of instability (OR 2.739; 95%CI 1.888-3.974), number of prior revisions ≥ 3 (OR, 2.226; 95% CI, 1.569-3.16) and number of prior revisions ≥ 2 (OR 1.949; 95% CI 1.349-2.817), acetabular components with elevated rim liner were less likely to develop dislocation after revision THA (OR 0.611; 95% CI 0.415-0.898).

CONCLUSIONS

Related prophylaxis strategies should be implemented in patients involved with above-mentioned risk factors to prevent dislocation after revision THA.

Re-dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation: a multicentre study

PURPOSE

Although most case of dislocations after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be managed with conservative treatment, recurrent dislocation may require surgical intervention. This multicentre study was conducted to evaluate the re-dislocation rate after revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to determine the risk factors for re-dislocation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the 88 hips in 88 patients who underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation at five institutions between 1995 and 2014. The mean patient age at surgery was 68.5 years and the mean follow-up period was 53.1 months. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for re-dislocation.

RESULTS

Sixteen hips in 16 patients (18.2 %) re-dislocated at a mean of 25.5 months (range, 1-83 months) after revision THA. Multivariate analysis identified osteonecrosis of the femoral head (odds ratio [OR] = 5.62 vs. osteoarthritis) and a femoral head size < 32 mm (OR = 3.86) as independent risk factors for re-dislocation. Eight hips required additional revision THA for re-dislocation.

CONCLUSION

The re-dislocation rate after revision THA for recurrent dislocation remains high, suggesting the need for prevention measures. We recommend the use of a femoral head size ≥ 32 mm.