Global radiological score for femoral cementless revision stem

Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is a frequently used procedure with high success rates, but 7% to 27% of the patients complain of persistent postsurgical pain 1 to 4 years post-operation. HA complications depend on the post-operative delay, the type of material used, the patient’s characteristics, and the surgical approach. Radiographs are still the first imaging modality used for routine follow-up, in asymptomatic and painful cases. CT and MRI used to suffer from metallic artifacts but are nowadays central in HA complications diagnosis, both having their advantages and drawbacks. Additionally, there is no consensus on the optimal imaging workup for HA complication diagnosis, which may have an impact on patient management. After a brief reminder about the different types of prostheses, this article reviews their normal and pathologic appearance, according to each imaging modality, keeping in mind that few abnormalities might be present, not anyone requiring treatment, depending on the clinical scenario. A diagnostic imaging workup is also discussed, to aid the therapist in his imaging studies prescription and the radiologist in their practical aspects.

Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem

Background

Monoblock taper fluted stems have been reliably used to treat proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures (PFF) and femoral aseptic loosening (AL). Although proximal femoral remodeling has been observed around the Wagner Self-Locking (SL) stem, the exact characteristics of this process are yet to be established. Our aim was to compare the remodeling that takes place after femoral revisions for PFF and AL.

Methods

Consecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2017 undergoing femoral revision using the Wagner SL stem for PFF or AL without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) or bone grafting were selected from our database. Radiological follow-up was performed using plain antero-posterior hip radiographs taken postoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months and at 24 months. The Global Radiological Score (GRxS) was utilized by four blinded observers. Intra and interobserver variability was calculated. Secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Hip Score and the Visual Analog Scale for pain.

Results

We identified 20 patients from our database, 10 PFF and 10 AL cases. The severity of AL was Paprosky 2 in 2 cases, Paprosky 3A in 2 cases and Paprosky 3B in 6. PFF were classified as Vancouver B2 in 7 cases and Vancouver B3 in 3 cases. Patients undergoing femoral revision for PFF regained 89% (GRxS: 17.7/20) of their bone stock by 6 months, whilst patients with AL, required almost 2 years to achieve similar reconstitution of proximal femoral bony architecture 86% (GRxS: 17.1/20). Inter-observer reproducibility for numerical GRxS values showed a “good” correlation with 0.68, whilst the intra-observer agreement was “very good” with 0.89. Except immediate after the revision, we found a significant difference between the GRxS results of the two groups at each timepoint with pair-wise comparisons. Functional results were similar in the two groups. We were not able to show a correlation between GRxS and functional results.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral bone stock reconstitutes much quicker around PFF, than in the cases of AL, where revision is performed without an ETO. The accuracy of GRxS measurements on plain radiographs showed good reproducibility, making it suitable for everyday use in a revision arthroplasty practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6.

High Revision Rates of a Cementless Beta-Titanium Alloy Stem with Contamination-Free Roughened Surface in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Optimal osseointegration of cementless total hip arthroplasty is essential for high stability and long-term survival. The purpose of this follow-up study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome, the complications, and survival rates of a beta-titanium alloy stem with a specific grit-blasted-free surface. In 192 patients (mean age of 64.4 years), 202 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties were performed using a cementless Hipstar^® stem (Stryker, Duisburg, DE). The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively. Radiolucent lines were evaluated and the implant survival rate was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The mean follow-up was 7.71 years (range of 5.0–14.0 years). Overall, 15 revisions were performed. Early aseptic stem loosening was observed in six cases (2.97%). Radiolucent-lines adjacent to the stem were detected in 73 cases (83.02%), especially (70.46%) in the Gruen zones 1, 7, 8, and 14. The mean postoperative HHS was 92.65 points (range 42–100). The cumulative survival probability of the stem was 94.4% (95% CI 90.3 to 98.5%). Considering aseptic failure as an endpoint, the cumulative survival rate of the stem was 95.3% (95% CI 0.914 to 0.992) at six years of follow-up. Overall, an inferior mid-term implant survival was observed in comparison to well-established cementless stem designs.

Cementless revision femoral stems application of press-fit principles and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cementless femoral stems are currently used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the surgeon choosing between various fixation modes. The outcomes are good in the medium term; however, some failures have been attributed to technical errors during implantation. When the decision has been made to use a press-fit implant, the impact of the surgeon's technique on the functional outcomes have not been explored in-depth. This led us to carry out a retrospective study on a large population of total hip arthroplasty patients which aims were achieved press-fit to (1) determine the impact of the type of primary fixation (with and without press-fit) on the functional outcomes; (2) specify the effect of stem length on the functional scores when diaphyseal press-fit is achieved and (3) analyse the main reasons why a true press-fit effect was not achieved (three-point fixation).

HYPOTHESIS

There is a relationship between the primary fixation method by press-fit of a revision femoral stem and the functional outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a continuous cohort of 244 THA revision cases with a mean follow-up of 6.1 ± 3.5 years (range, 2-18). The femoral area in which close contact was achieved (shared interface between the bone and implant) was used to define various types of press-fit fixation. The functional outcomes were determined using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d'AubignéPostel score (MAP score) out of 12 points (pain and walking items).

RESULTS

The post-operative HHS averaged 90.83 ± 7.51 for proximal press-fit and 80.14 ± 14.93 with no press-fit (p = 0.01). The MAP averaged 10.83 ± 1.03 for proximal press-fit and 9.75 ± 2.09 with no press-fit (p = 0.09). The MAP score was worse for long diaphyseal press-fit than for short press-fit (p = 0.02). Use of a long stem with an endofemoral route or an overly small femoral window in patients with a curved femur is the main reason that three-point fixation occurred instead of press-fit.

CONCLUSIONS

While press-fit is an effective concept, it is a demanding one that requires the surgeon to choose the correct surgical strategy for the patient's anatomy. A meticulous surgical technique is required to achieve proximal press-fit or at a minimum, short diaphyseal press-fit.

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions

INTRODUCTION

In the last three decades, total hip replacement in young patient became a habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants).

METHODS

During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, etiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique.

RESULTS

We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two case of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one-time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions

INTRODUCTION

In last three decades, total hip replacement in young patients became an habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants).

METHODS

During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, aetiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique.

RESULTS

We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two cases of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.