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

Recovery of muscular tissue and functional results of patients treated with a gluteus maximus flap transfer due to chronic abductor deficiency after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the function of the abductor mechanism after a gluteus maximus flap transfer due to a degeneration of the muscles after hip arthroplasty, we analyzed the post-operative functional outcome as well as radiographic effects in muscle tissue.

METHODS

This present study included six consecutive patients operatively treated with a gluteus maximus flap due to chronic gluteal deficiency after total hip arthroplasty. All patients presented a preoperative severe limp, hip abductor deficiency and a history of conservative treatment without the relief of symptoms. MRI scans were performed pre- and postoperatively to evaluate the muscle volume and grade of degeneration of the abductor mechanism. For clinical evaluation, the Harris hip score (HHS) was applied pre- and postoperatively. Moreover, the intensity of pain, the Trendelenburg sign, the internal rotation lag sign and the abductor muscle force were measured before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, the evaluation of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) showed no significant changes in total muscle volume during the follow-up period. Separate measurements presented a significant growth of muscle volume for the gluteus minimus and tensor fascia lata compared to preoperative imaging during the follow-up period. The amount of fat volume decreased for all the measured muscles with statistical significance for the gluteus minimus, the gluteus medius and the tensor fascia lata. No further muscle degeneration and no flap necrosis were measured. The postoperative HHS results were not statistically significant compared to the preoperative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides fair clinical results, the radiological measurements indicate that the flap transfer enables functional muscular tissue recovery and prevents further degeneration. Given these conditions, the gluteus maximus muscle flap transfer represents a viable treatment option for patients with chronic gluteal deficiency in selected patients.

Dual-mobility bearings reduce instability but may not be the only answer in revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

Aims

There is little information in the literature about the use of dual-mobility (DM) bearings in preventing re-dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to compare the use of DM bearings, standard bearings, and constrained liners in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation.

Methods

We reviewed 86 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation between August 2012 and July 2019. A total of 38 revisions (44.2%) involved a DM bearing, while 39 (45.3%) and nine (10.5%) involved a standard bearing and a constrained liner, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation, and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for the positioning of the acetabular component, the restoration of the centre of rotation, leg length, and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by Cox regression analysis. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHSs) were recorded. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (43 to 88); 54 were female (62.8%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years (2.0 to 8.75).

Results

DM bearings were used significantly more frequently in elderly patients (p = 0.003) and in hips with abductor deficiency (p < 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 13.2% for DM bearings compared with 17.9% for standard bearings, and 22.2% for constrained liners (p = 0.432). Re-revision-free survival for DM bearings was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.91) compared with 74% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) for standard articulations, and 67% (95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) for constrained liners (p = 0.361). Younger age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99); p = 0.031), lower comorbidity (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.95); p = 0.037), smaller heads (HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.99); p = 0.046), and retention of the acetabular component (HR 8.26 (95% CI 1.37 to 49.96); p = 0.022) were significantly associated with re-dislocation. All DM bearings which re-dislocated were in patients with abductor muscle deficiency (HR 48.34 (95% CI 0.03 to 7,737.98); p = 0.303). The radiological analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between restoration of the geometry of the hip and re-dislocation. The mean mHHSs significantly improved from 43 points (0 to 88) to 67 points (20 to 91; p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, with no differences between the types of bearing.

Conclusion

We found that the use of DM bearings reduced the rates of re-dislocation and re-revision in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, but did not guarantee stability. Abductor deficiency is an important predictor of persistent instability.

Dislocation and survival rate of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with high risk of instability

PURPOSE

Instability remains as an unsolved complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual mobility (DM) cups have decreased dislocation rate in rTHA; however, there are few clinical studies that evaluate the risk of dislocation after rTHA in patients with high risk of instability.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2019, 95 consecutive rTHA using a DM cup, in 93 patients with instability risk factors were retrospectively reviewed. Instability risk factors were defined as follows: deficient abductor mechanism (22.1%), previous dislocation (68.4%), Paprosky 3 acetabular bone defect (21.1%), neuromuscular disease (4.2%), lumbar spine arthrodesis (6.3%), and more than one previous surgery (33.6%). Mean follow-up was 4.3 ± 2.4 years. Clinical and radiographic parameters were reported. DM cup survival was determined using a Kaplan-Meier analysis with re-revision for any cause as the end-point. Surgical complications and re-dislocation rate was recorded.

RESULTS

Seven DM cups were re-revised; three due to aseptic loosening, three due to peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and one due to instability. At seven years follow-up, the survival rate of the DM cup using re-revision for any reason as the end-point was 82.4% (95% confidence interval, 66.4-98.4%). There were 12 (12.6%) complications: two (2.1%) dislocations, six (6.3%) PJI, four (4.2%) peri-prosthetic fractures.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest DM cups are effective reducing dislocation rate in rTHA in patients with a high risk of instability, without increasing early aseptic loosening and with a low rate of dislocation. Nevertheless, longer follow-up is needed to confirm implant stability and dislocation rates in the long term.

Treatment strategies for recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty: relationship between cause of dislocation and type of revision surgery

Background

There are many therapeutic options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of revision surgery for dislocated hips.

Methods

Between November 2001 and December 2020, 71 consecutive revision hip surgeries were performed at our institution for recurrent dislocation following THA. We conducted a retrospective study of all 65 patients (71 hips), who were followed for a mean of 4.7 ± 3.2 years (range, 1–14). The cohort included 48 women and 17 men, with a mean age of 71 ± 12.3 years (range, 34–92). The mean number of previous surgeries was 1.6 ± 1.1 (range, 1–5). From intraoperative findings, we created six categories of revision hip surgery for recurrent dislocation following THA: open reduction and internal fixation (2 hips); head change or liner change only (6 hips); cup change with increased head size only (14 hips); stem change only (7 hips); cup and stem change (24 hips); and conversion to constrained cup (18 hips). Prosthesis survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method, with repeat revision surgery for re-dislocation or implant failure as the endpoint. A cox proportional hazards model was used for risk factors of re-revision surgery.

Results

Re-dislocation occurred in 5 hips (7.0%) and implant failure in 1 hip (1.4%). The 10-year survival rate was 81.1% (95% confidence interval, 65.5–96.8). A Dorr classification of “positional” was a risk factor for re-revision surgery due to re-dislocation.

Conclusion

Clear understanding of the cause of dislocation is essential for optimizing revision procedures and improving the rate of successful outcomes.

Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty: Should It Be Revised Using Dual Mobility Implants? A Retrospective Analysis from the R.I.P.O. Registry

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33-96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48-92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.

Changing Surgical Approach From Primary to Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Associated With Increased Risk of Dislocation or Re-Revisions

BACKGROUND

No prior studies have examined outcomes based on approach concordance between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is theoretical concern that performing surgery through multiple planes could potentiate dislocation risk. This study aimed to assess the impact of utilizing concordant vs discordant surgical approaches between primary and revision THA on incidence of dislocation, re-revision, reoperation, and nonoperative complications.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2018, 705 revision THAs were retrospectively identified in patients who underwent primary THA at the same academic center. Surgical approach was determined for primary and revision THA from operative notes with dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and complications determined from our total joint registry. Complication rates were compared between those with concordant and discordant surgical approaches. Mean age was 65 years, 50% were female, mean body mass index was 31 kg/m², and mean follow-up was 4 years.

RESULTS

Surgical approach discordance occurred in 97 cases (14%), which was more frequent when the direct anterior approach was used for primary THA (72%, P < .001) compared to lateral (12%) or posterior (10%) approaches. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and nonoperative complications among those with concordant and discordant approaches for the overall cohort and when analyzed by primary approach (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Comparable dislocation and complication rates were observed among revision THAs with concordant and discordant approaches between primary and revision THA. These data provide reassurance that changing vs maintaining the surgical approach from primary to revision THA does not significantly increase dislocation or re-revision risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Tripolar Constrained and Dual Mobility Liners Are Both Successful When Cemented Into Tantalum Acetabular Revision Shells in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Instability is a common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty. Tripolar constrained (TC) and dual mobility (DM) liners cemented into tantalum acetabular revision (TM) shells are established alternatives that reduce instability risk. This study compares outcomes of TC and DM liners cemented into TM shells in complex revision hip replacements.

Methods

Fifty cases using a TM shell and a TC or DM cemented liner with at least 12 months of follow-up were identified. There were 25 TC and 25 DM liners. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Reasons for re-revision and failures were analyzed.

Results

The average age was 73 years in the TC group and 75 years in the DM group. The median follow-up duration was 50 months (23 - 96) and 13 months (12 – 21) for the TC and DM groups, respectively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 37 to 61 for the TC group and from 51 to 73 in the DM group at the last review. Two TC cases required revision for wear and liner failure. One DM insert was changed at reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture. There were no failures of cement fixation in either group and no revisions for cup loosening.

Conclusions

In complex revision hip replacement with a history of instability or judged to have a high risk of instability postoperatively, TC and DM liners cemented into tantalum revision shells are both successful, giving acceptable results. The improved arc of movement with DM liners, minimizing impingement, makes them preferable except when there is a global abductor deficiency or severe joint laxity.

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.

Outcome of revision surgery in recurrent dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The cause of recurrent dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is multifactorial. A re-dislocation rate of up-to 34% following revision is reported. The aim of this study was to determine the re-dislocation rates following revision for recurrent THR dislocation.

METHODOLOGY

Patients who underwent revision for recurrent dislocation between January 2008 and January 2015 were identified. We identified the date and type of primary implant, overall number and reasons for dislocation, revision implant details and complication data.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 24 patients underwent revision. The median age was 77 (68-85) years, median time to first dislocation was 78 (23-160) months and median number of dislocations was 3 (2-4) with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Socket Mal-Orientation (10) and Abductor deficiency (5) were the main causes of recurrent dislocation. 21 patients (88%) underwent revision of both components, 1 patient underwent isolated cup revision and 2 patients had revision of acetabular component with insertion of a BioBall. There were no dislocations within 90 days of revision surgery. 4 patients had late dislocations (3 recurrent, 1 isolated). There was no significant increase risk of dislocation after revision surgery in the neck of femur group (p = 0.467).

CONCLUSIONS

We report favourable outcomes for revision of both components for recurrent dislocation with no dislocations within 90 days. The overall late dislocation rate was 16.7%, however, these patients have settled following closed reduction. Due to its multifactorial aetiology, both component revision can be considered in this patient population.

Clinical and radiological outcomes in three-dimensional printing assisted revision total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study investigates whether three-dimensional (3D) printing-assisted revision total hip/knee arthroplasty could improve its clinical and radiological outcomes and assess the depth and breadth of research conducted on 3D printing-assisted revision total hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Only studies that investigated 3D printing-assisted revision total hip and knee arthroplasty were included. The author, publication year, study design, number of patients, patients' age, the time of follow-up, surgery category, Coleman score, clinical outcomes measured, clinical outcomes conclusion, radiological outcomes measured, and radiological outcomes conclusion were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Ten articles were included in our review. Three articles investigated the outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty, and seven investigated the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty. Two papers compared a 3D printing group with a control group, and the other eight reported 3D printing treatment outcomes alone. Nine articles investigated the clinical outcomes of total hip/knee arthroplasty, and eight studied the radiological outcomes of total hip/knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

3D printing is being introduced in revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. Current literature suggests satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes could be obtained with the assistance of 3D printing. Further long-term follow-up studies are required, particularly focusing on cost-benefit analysis, resource availability, and, importantly, the durability and biomechanics of customized prostheses using 3D printing compared to traditional techniques.

Gluteus maximus transfer and mass graft (Capsulorraphy) in recurrent hip dislocation with the history of total hip replacement: A case series

•

Post THR dislocation has been a significant complication.

•

Four patients operated by soft tissue procedure of gluteus maximus transfer as an abductor replacement and along with capsule augmentation using synthetic mesh as a synthetic capsule to strengthen and provide more stability.

•

The use of mesh in soft tissue procedures, such as capsulorraphy, with the addition gluteus maximus transfer may assist to prevent (re)dislocations of the hip.

Introduction

Post THR dislocation has been a significant complication that interferes with the patient’s life. Detection of risk factors, careful planning, proper operative procedures, and patient education is essential to prevent the incidence of dislocation. Several operative measures have been studied to achieve this, including the use of mesh for soft tissue procedures and capsulorraphy.

Case Presentation

A total of four patients is included in this case series. Two had a history of trauma that contributes to the necessity of the procedure while the other two had degenerative joint issues. All were operated by soft tissue procedure of gluteus maximus transfer as an abductor replacement and along with capsule augmentation using synthetic mesh as a synthetic capsule to strengthen and provide more stability.

Discussion

The abductor strength from this gluteus maximus procedure is sufficient to stabilize the pelvis and prevent pelvic sag. The primary material of the mesh should produce inflammatory reaction so that a fibro capsular structure is formed surrounding the hip joint to add stability.

Conclusion

The use of mesh in soft tissue procedures, such as capsulorraphy, with the addition gluteus maximus transfer may assist to prevent (re)dislocations of the hip. However, further study should be conducted to validate the routine use of mesh and gluteus maximus transfer to prevent dislocation after the procedure.

Midterm results of revision total hip arthroplasty for migrated bipolar hemiarthroplasty in patients with hip osteoarthritis using cementless cup with the rim-fit technique

PURPOSE

The results of reamed bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are reported to be unfavorable. Acetabular reaming for sufficient bony coverage caused bipolar head migration into the superomedial direction, and most patients required revision surgeries. Several methods are applicable to treat decreased bone stock. This study aimed to investigate the midterm results of revision surgeries using the cementless cup with the rim-fit technique.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 2014, acetabular revision surgeries using the cementless cup with the rim-fit technique were performed in 86 hips (74 patients). We evaluated radiographic outcomes, including positional change of the rotation center of the artificial femoral head, presence of implant loosening, and filling of the initial gap. We also evaluated clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS), and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The average positional changes from BHA to prerevision surgeries were 8.0 mm superiorly and 4.1 mm medially. The average changes from prerevision to postrevision surgeries were 3.7 mm inferiorly and 2.4 mm laterally. No implant loosening was found in all cases; the initial gap between the acetabular host bone and the acetabular cup was filled in 53 (93%) among 57 hips. The average HHS improved from 65.9 before revision surgeries to 83.8 in the latest follow-up. Dislocation and postoperative periprosthetic fracture occurred in two and five hips, respectively; no cases required rerevision surgeries.

CONCLUSION

There were favorable midterm results of the revision total hip arthroplasty for migrated BHA in patients with hip OA using cementless cup with the rim-fit technique.

The use of a triflange salvage system for catastrophic pelvic osteolysis after failed total hip arthroplasty

Introduction

The custom triflange acetabular implant (CTAI) has been described to address catastrophic pelvic osteolysis, but long-term outcome data is scarce.

Methods

Revision-free survivorship after revision THA with a CTAI was retrospectively reviewed in seven patients.

Results

Mean and median follow-up time were 7.39 (1.61-16.8) years and 7.50 years, respectively. Revision-free survivorship was 85.7% (6/7). One patient underwent revision for recurrent dislocations. All patients were able to ambulate at recent follow-up- 2/7 without assistance.

Conclusions

The CTAI is a viable option for patients with catastrophic pelvic osteolysis. There is a high complication rate, but the incidence of revision is low.

Risk Factors for Dislocation and Re-revision After First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty due to Recurrent Dislocation - A Study From the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND

Persistent instability after hip revision is a serious problem. Our aim was to analyze surgical and patient-related risk factors for both a new dislocation and re-revision after first-time hip revision due to dislocation.

METHODS

We included patients with a primary THA due to osteoarthritis and a first-time revision due to dislocation registered in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) from 1996 to 2016. We identified dislocations in the Danish National Patient Register and re-revisions in the DHR. Risk factors were analyzed by a multivariable regression analysis adjusting for the competing risk of death. Results are presented as subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR).

RESULTS

We identified 1678 first-time revisions due to dislocation. Of these, 22.4% had a new dislocation. 19.8% were re-revised for any reason. With new dislocations treated by closed reduction as the endpoint, the sHR was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27-0.48) for those who had a constrained liner (CL) during revision and 0.21 (0.08-0.58) for dual mobility cups (DMC), thereby lowering the risk of dislocation compared to regular liners. Changing only the head/liner increased the risk of dislocation (sHR = 2.65; 2.05-3.42) compared to full cup revisions. The protective effect of CLs and DMCs on dislocations vanished when re-revisions became the endpoint. The head/liner exchange was still found inferior compared to cup revision (sHR = 1.73; 1.34-2.23).

CONCLUSION

Patients revised with DMCs and CLs were associated with a lower risk of dislocation after a first-time revision but not re-revision, whereas only changing the head/liner was associated with a higher risk of dislocation and re-revision of any cause compared to cup revision.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Rates, Predictors, and Reasons Vary by Surgical Indication

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is performed for different surgical indications. With increasing attention being focused to minimize readmission risk, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was used to assess 30-day readmissions after rTHA for 3 aseptic indications.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rTHA were identified in the 2013-2017 NSQIP and classified as being performed for osteolysis/aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation, or periprosthetic fracture. Rates and predictors of 30-day readmission were determined by indication. Reasons for readmission were also assessed as being either related or unrelated to the surgical site.

RESULTS

Of 6104 patients meeting inclusion criteria, osteolysis/aseptic loosening represented 46% of the revisions (readmission rate: 6.2%), recurrent dislocation represented 33.2% (readmission rate: 10.9%), and periprosthetic fractures represented 20.9% (readmission rate: 9.3%). These readmission rates represented statistically significant variation across the 3 indications (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, demographic, procedural, and postoperative predictors of readmission varied by indication. The osteolysis/aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture cohorts had surgical site-related readmissions in 43.9% and 42.4% of readmitted cases, respectively. On the contrary, readmissions after rTHA performed for recurrent dislocation were mostly surgical site-related (63.3%) and driven primarily by a postoperative dislocation. Further multivariate analysis showed that the rTHA indication of recurrent dislocation itself was the strongest predictor (odds ratio, 3.34; P < .0001) of a postoperative dislocation leading to a 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day readmissions varied from 6.2% to 10.9% based on surgical indication for aseptic rTHA. Reasons for readmission also differed across the 3 cohorts. These findings may aid postoperative care pathways and protocol optimization.

The Patient With Chronic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocations: A Case Series of Five Patients Who Underwent Revision THA Using Polypropylene Mesh for Capsular Reconstruction

We report a case series of 5 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a polypropylene mesh for capsular reconstruction for chronic THA instability. The average follow-up is 16.6 months (range, 9-20 months). There were no postoperative dislocations in our series. Three patients had previous infections with two-stage revisions before final revision surgery and were infection free at their most recent follow-up. One patient developed a prosthetic joint infection 2 months postoperatively. The use of a polypropylene mesh appears to be another tool that surgeons can use when dealing with the difficult dilemma on how to treat the patient with chronic THA instability and severe abductor and capsular tissue loss.

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.

Tripolar Articulations as a "High Stability Bearing" for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Success Rates and Risk Factors for Failure

BACKGROUND

Unconstrained tripolar articulations have been theorized to increase hip stability. The purpose of this study is to report the performance of tripolar articulations in revision THA and identify factors associated with success and failure.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2016, 67 revision THAs were performed with an unconstrained tripolar articulation. Mean follow-up was 5.4 years. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed emphasizing factors associated with risk of instability. There were 21 patients with neither a history of instability (HI) nor abductor insufficiency (AI), 20 patients with HI alone, 13 with AI alone, and 13 had both HI and AI.

RESULTS

Twelve THAs sustained at least one postrevision dislocation at an average of 2.1 years. One bipolar dissociation occurred early (1.2 y). Nine hips had a re-revision to address these complications. Survival free from dislocation at 2, 5, and 10 years was 88%, 85%, and 74%, respectively. Survival free from re-revision at 2, 5, and 10 years was 91%, 84%, and 65%, respectively. Patients with combined AI and HI had the worst survivorship free from dislocation at 2, 5, and 10 years (77%, 68%, and 55%), respectively. In contrast, patients with neither HI nor AI experienced zero dislocations. There were no failures associated with bearing wear.

CONCLUSION

Off-the-shelf tripolar articulations were associated with reasonable survival at midterm follow-up. In patients with both AI and HI, the risks and benefits of alternative options such as dual mobility or constrained liners should be explored as the risk of dislocation at 10 years approached 50%.

Surgical repair for abductor lesion after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Abductor mechanism lesions represent a severe complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The resulting abductor insufficiency can cause limping, pain, instability, and a higher rate of failure, thus requiring further revision surgery. In case of severe degeneration and retraction of the abductor mechanism, several different surgical treatments are needed.

AIM

To systematically review all studies reporting on surgical treatment of severe abductor lesion after rTHA, focusing on surgical techniques, and clinical and functional results.

METHOD

Scientific databases were accessed in December 2018 to identify studies addressing the surgical management of severe abductor disruption after rTHA. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Data were extracted from the identified articles and summarised. Only data about patients with symptoms of abductor insufficiency after rTHA were included in the database.

RESULTS

9 retrospective studies were included, all being retrospective case series reporting on a total of 92 patients. Several surgical strategies have been described and performed: a repair using a synthetic mesh was reported in 1 study; 2 studies reported on local muscle transfer (gluteus maximus transfer or advancement); vastus lateralis advancement was described in 4 studies while in 2 studies the injury was repaired with the use of an allograft. Overall positive results have been reported in terms of pain reduction, while poor to mild functional scores with persistent limping have often been observed in the postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The short follow-up time of the reviewed studies is inadequate to uncover any late dislocation, implant failure or different complications related to abductor mechanism reconstruction.

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.

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.

Course of dislocated posterior hip arthroplasty: A continuous 232-patient series at a mean 10 years' follow up (range, 1-22 years)

BACKGROUND

Dislocation rates in posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA) range between 2% and 5%, but long-term course (recurrence of dislocation or revision surgery) is not known, most series having short follow-up or small populations. We therefore conducted a retrospective study on a large series, to determine long-term rates of recurrence and surgical revision and recurrence risk factors.

HYPOTHESIS

Long-term follow-up of a large cohort of THA dislocations enables recurrence rate and factors to be determined.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Five hundred and nine cases of THA dislocation were admitted to our center between 1994 and 2008. A hundred and twenty seven incomplete files and 150 patients who had received their THA elsewhere were excluded, leaving 232 patients: 150 female, 82 male. Mean age at THA (163 primary, 69 revision) was 63 years (range, 15-90 years), and 65 years (range 20-90 years) at first dislocation, with a mean interval to dislocation of 25 months. Minimum follow-up was 8 years up to 2016, or 1 year taking account of deaths (111 deaths). There were 46 anterior, 185 posterior and 1 multidirectional dislocations. The following potential recurrence factors were assessed: gander, age, body-mass index (BMI), etiology, surgical history, bearing diameter and type, component fixation means, dislocation direction, and time to dislocation.

RESULTS

A hundred and thirty three of the 232 patients (57%) showed at least 1 recurrence, at a mean 38 months (range, 0.5-252 months); 78 experienced a second and 32 a third recurrence. Ninety-nine (43%) had only 1 dislocation, without recurrence, but 17 of these (17%) underwent reoperation for other causes. The reoperation rate was 17/232 (7%) excluding recurrent instability, and 84/232 (36%) for instability. Fourty-eight months after the first dislocation, 84/133 cases of recurrence (63%) had been reoperated on: 16 complete replacements, 18 bearing replacements, 42 dual mobility cups, one large diameter cup, seven Lefèvre retentive cups. The rate of revision surgery for instability was high, at 84/232 (36%), and higher again in relation to recurrence (84/133: 63%). Only posterior dislocation emerged as a factor for recurrence (HR=1.774, 95% CI [1.020-3.083]), the other tested factors showing no correlation.14 of the 84 revision surgeries for instability (16.6%) were followed by recurrence, without identifiable risk factors.

CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

The recurrence rate was 57%, with posterior dislocation as the only risk factor. The rate of revision surgery for recurrence was 84/232 (36%), with 14/84 revision procedures (16.6%) followed by further recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective, without control group.

Rehabilitation of revision total hip replacement: A multi-centre survey of current practice

BACKGROUND

Demand for revision total hip replacement (RTHR) is increasing. Outcomes after RTHR are varied, with reasonable pain relief but smaller gains in function and mobility. Whether sub-optimal rehabilitation contributes to poorer functional outcomes is unclear. Current rehabilitation is not well defined and there is little research into RTHR rehabilitation.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To gather information about the current rehabilitation of patients undergoing planned, single-stage revision or re-revision THR surgery.

METHODS

An online survey was developed and sent to clinicians at 117 orthopaedic centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Questions were asked about standard rehabilitation practice pre-operatively, post-operatively and immediately after discharge. The frequency (%) of responses to closed questions was analysed and free-text comments were summarized thematically.

RESULTS

There were 133 respondents: mostly physiotherapists (92, 69%) and occupational therapists (39, 29%). Pre-operative education was common (112, 84%) but not uniform, and for 52 (46%) the same as for primary THR patients. Respondents were more likely to agree about the general objectives of rehabilitation, for example gait re-education with walking aids (93, 70%), and retraining functional mobility (92, 69%) rather than about specific elements including exercise prescription, duration of hip precautions and provision of occupational therapy. The provision of rehabilitation following discharge varied considerably.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey adds to sparse information about rehabilitation RTHR. No consensus emerged about optimal rehabilitation. The diversity in approach and lack of clear structure suggests work is needed to develop rehabilitation interventions that are tailored to this population.