The focally constrained liner is a reasonable option for revision of unstable total hip arthroplasty

Short term outcomes (average follow up of 2.4 years) of a constrained acetabular liner in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

As instability continues to be a burden post total hip arthroplasty (THA), there has been a controversial discussion on the ideal implant choice. We report here the outcomes of a modern constrained acetabular liner (CAL) system in primary and revision THA at an average follow up of 2.4 years.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty and being implanted with the modern CAL system from 2013 to 2021. We identified 31 hips, of which 13 underwent primary THA and the remaining 18 underwent revision THA for instability.

RESULTS

Of those implanted with CAL primarily, 3 had concomitant abductor tear repair and gluteus maximus transfer, 5 had Parkinson's disease, 2 had inclusion body myositis, 1 had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and the remaining 2 were above 94 years of age. All patients implanted with the CAL were as a result of active instability post-primary THA and underwent only liner and head exchange without revision of the acetabular or femoral components. At an average follow up of 2.4 years (range, 9 months to 5 years and 4 months), we had 1 case (3.2 %) of dislocation post-CAL implantation. None of the patients undergoing surgery with CAL for active instability had a re-dislocation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a constrained acetabular liner provides excellent stability in both primary THA in high risk individuals and revision THA in cases of active instability. There were no dislocations when using a constrained acetabular liner to treat active instability post THA.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants

BACKGROUND

The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA.

METHODS

Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants.

RESULTS

For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants.

CONCLUSION

Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of Constrained Acetabular Liners in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of constrained acetabular liners (CALs) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with hip instability; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this constrained implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to examine survivorship and complication rate of CAL usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.

RESULTS

In all, 37 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 4152 CALs were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 79.9%. The overall complication rate was 22.2%. Dislocation was the most common complications observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 9.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Infection after CAL placement had an incidence of 4.6%. The reoperation rate for aseptic acetabular component loosening was 2.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.

CONCLUSION

CALs usage have a relatively high complication rate, particularly when compared with current bearing alternatives (dual mobility cups and large diameter femoral heads), however, it remains a valuable salvage procedure in complex patients affected by recurrent dislocation and implant instability. Newer designs have shown reduced impingement and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, CALs should only be used when the reasons of instability have been correctly recognized and optimized.

Constrained Liners Implanted Simultaneously at the Time of Acetabular Shell Revision with a Highly Porous Implant: Surprisingly Good Fixation at 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons are reluctant to use a constrained liner at the time of acetabular component revision because of concerns that doing so might result in early acetabular component loosening related to high bone-implant interface stresses transmitted from the constrained liner. We hypothesized that, with appropriate initial implant stabilization using highly porous acetabular components with robust supplemental screw fixation, constrained liners could be safely used at the time of acetabular revision.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 148 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in which a constrained liner of 1 design was cemented into a newly placed highly porous acetabular component fixed with supplemental screws (mean, 5 screws). The mean age at the time of revision THA was 69 years, and 68% of the patients were female. The most common indications for revision were 2-stage reimplantation (33%), recurrent dislocation (30%), and aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (22%) or both the acetabular and femoral components (9%). The mean duration of follow-up was 7 years.

RESULTS

There were no failures at the bone-implant interface. No cases of acetabular metal shell loosening were identified on radiographic analysis. The 10-year survival rates with acetabular revision and any reoperation as the end points were 75% and 67%, respectively. Overall, 33 hips (22%) required revision or reoperation because of infection or wound complications (n = 12), dislocation or mechanical failure of the constrained liner (n = 11), periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 4), femoral loosening (n = 3), or other reasons (n = 3). The 10-year survival rate with re-revision for instability as the end point was 88% overall, which was similar to the 85% 10-year survival rate with re-revision for instability as the end point among hips that were specifically revised because of instability during index revision THA (p = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Implanting a constrained liner at the time of acetabular revision in high-risk patients resulted in no cases of aseptic metal acetabular component loosening in this large series. This finding is likely related to the fact that a highly porous acetabular component was utilized with robust supplemental screw fixation in each case. Such information is valuable as these data favor a paradigm shift when compared with some traditionally held tenets.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Literature Review

Recurrent instability remains a common cause of failure after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual mobility (DM) cups and designs with constrained acetabular liners (CAL) have both been developed to help overcome this challenge. The aim of this report is to compare safety and efficacy outcomes of both designs based on the literature. A comprehensive literature review including published evidence on the results of DM and CAL in revision THA was performed and summarized. Available literature focusing on overall survival, dislocation, loosening, intra-prosthetic dislocation (IPD), and functional outcomes were analysed. Forty-six reports including an evaluation of 5,617 total hips were evaluated were included in the review. The included studies were divided into two distinct groups based on implantation approach: i) CAL (n=15) and ii) DM (n=31). The DM group had higher overall survival rates (94.7% vs. 81.0%), lower dislocation rates (2.6% vs. 11.0%), and lower acetabular loosening rates (1.0% vs. 2.0%) compared to the CAL group. IPDs were reported in 6 studies (mean rate, 0.6%). No differences in functional outcomes were identified due to incomplete reports. Our observations reveal that designs with CAL have poorer outcomes as compared to DM cups in revision THA. Currently, the use of DM seems more appropriate since they offer lower rates of dislocations, loosening and re-revisions in the short- and mid-term. Concerns regarding the potential of increased wear in a younger, high-demand population require additional data and evaluation by long-term studies for the DM design.

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for re-dislocation after revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The treatment for recurrent dislocation of a total hip arthroplasty is surgical using varied techniques and technologies to reduce the chances of re-dislocation and re-revision. The goal of this study is to compare operative techniques to reduce re-dislocation and re-revision in revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations.

METHODS

A retrospective study of revision hip arthroplasties done due to recurrent dislocation prior to 01 January 2014. Electronic physician and provincial health records were used to collect patients' initial and follow-up data. Treatment failure was defined as either aseptic re-revision or re-dislocation without revision. Time to event was considered as the re-revision date or the date of second dislocation when the latter endpoint was used.

RESULTS

Of 379 operations, 88 (23.2%) had aseptic repeat revision or recurrent dislocation. Of these: 66 (75.0%) due to dislocation with re-revision; 10 (11.4%) due to dislocation with no re-revision surgery; 5 (5.7%) due to aseptic loosening of components; 3 (3.4%) due to osteolysis; 3 (3.4%) due to pseudotumour; and 1 (1.1%) due to periprosthetic fracture. The following factors increase risk of failure: the use of augmented-liners (lipped, oblique and high-offset liners; HR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.05-2.69), periprosthetic femur fracture (HR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.39-8.21) and pelvic discontinuity (HR = 3.69, 95% CI, 1.66-8.21). Femur head sizes 36-40 mm are protective (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). In abductor dysfunction the use of focal constrained liners decreases the risk of failure (HR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.018-0.973).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger head sizes and focal constrained liners (abductors dysfunction) should be used and fully constrained liners and augmented-liners should be avoided in a revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations.