Femoral osteolysis around the unrevised stem during isolated acetabular revision

The impact of retaining the femoral stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

The management of well-fixed femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains a subject of debate, with concerns over potential complications arising from stem retention. This study aimed to investigate the re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening of the stem, overall re-revision rates, dislocation rates, and factors influencing these outcomes in rTHA with a retained well-fixed femoral stem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify pertinent publications from their inception through 2023. We specifically focused on studies that reported outcomes of rTHA with retained well-fixed femoral stems. The study designs incorporated in our research encompassed both cohort studies and case series studies. Thirty-five studies involving isolated acetabular revision and retaining the stem were included, representing a total of 3497 patients. Data extraction was tailored to the study questions. Meta-analyses, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the outcomes and their relationship with various factors. Pooled results, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses were performed using random-effects models. To assess and reduce bias, we employed Egger's test and the trim and fill method.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 3497 patients with a mean follow-up of 9.28 years. The 10-year risk of re-revision after retaining femoral stem using highly cross-linked polyethylene was 1.7% (95% CI 1.1%-2.3%; I2: 60%) for stem aseptic loosening and 8.8% (95% CI 6.2%-11.4%; I2: 78%) overall re-revision. Dislocation risk was 5.7% (95% CI 4.1-7.0%; I2: 61%). Ceramic heads showed lower stem failure risk than metal heads in long-term follow-ups (P < 0.001). The posterolateral approach in revision surgery resulted in better long-term outcomes compared to the direct lateral approach (P < 0.001). Follow-up duration, timeline of study, Harris Hip Score, type of stem fixation, femoral head material, BMI, age, stem age, and surgical approach were evaluated as influential factors on these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The re-revision rate due to aseptic loosening of the retained stem during rTHA was found to be significantly low, supporting the idea of retaining well-fixed stems during rTHA. The overall re-revision and dislocation rates also presented comparable or better outcomes to prior studies. A range of factors, including the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene and ceramic femoral heads, was found to influence these outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351157.

Debridement without bone grafting prevents osteolytic lesions progression in revision THAs with prosthesis revised

Background

Bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasties (rTHAs) caused by osteolysis are routinely treated with autografts or allografts, despite their various disadvantages. Currently, little is known about the prognosis of ungrafted cavities with complete debridement following prosthetic revision in rTHAs with component loosening, as few reports have focused on the application of debridement without bone grafting in osteolytic lesions that do not compromise structural stability in revision THAs with revised components.

Methods

In this study, 48 patients receiving rTHAs with components revised for aseptic loosening with osteolysis between 2015 and 2019 were included. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of hips before and after revision surgery and last follow-up were compared to measure whether the size of the debrided osteolytic cavity without bone graft had changed.

Results

In total, 48 patients with 59 osteolytic lesions were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 3.33 years (range 2-6 years). None of the 59 cavities had progressed at the last follow-up, and 11 (18.6%) regressed. Two patients underwent re-revision according to dislocation during follow-up.

Conclusion

In rTHAs with revised components, osteolytic lesions that do not influence structural stability could be debrided without grafting to avoid the disadvantages of grafting. Debridement and component revision are sufficient to prevent the progression of osteolytic lesions during surgery, without having adverse effects on the short-to mid-term prognosis.

Survivorship of the retained femoral component after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate re-revision rates of retained femoral components after revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

Papers were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with predetermined keywords from January 2000 to January 2022. The studies reporting the re-revision rates of retained stems after revision THA were identified. Pooled rates of re-revision for any reason and aseptic loosening were calculated using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model based on the results of heterogeneity assessment after the Freeman–Tukey double-arcsine transformation. A meta-regression was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results

There were 20 studies with 1,484 hips that received the isolated cup revision with the femoral component retained. The pooled re-revision rate of retained stems was 1.75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43%–3.65%]. The re-revision rate of retained stems due to aseptic loosening was 0.62% (95% CI, 0.06%–1.55%). The meta-regression showed that the fixation type (cemented or cementless) was related to the re-revision rate for any reason and the re-revision rate for aseptic loosening.

Conclusion

Based on the existing evidence, the isolated cup revision with a stable stem in situ yields low re-revision rates. The cement status of retained stems may influence the survivorship of stems.

Is the Revision Rate Higher After Hip Arthroplasty in Teenage Patients? A Prospective Study with Long-Term Follow-Up of More Than 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) are already proven good for end-stage arthritis in the older populations but it is challenging in young teenage patients. The primary aim was to assess Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOSS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and secondary aim for implant survival rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The details of 33 teenage patients (forty hips) who underwent HRA (21) and THA (19) at our institution (January 2002 to December 2013) with a mean follow-up period of 11.00 years (range 7.00-18.40) were included. The study group had 25 males and eight females.

RESULTS

The overall median HOOSs with interquartile range were 89.00 (87.63-0.00). The median HOOSs at follow-up were as follows: 95.00 (90.00-95.00) for symptoms, 92.00 (90.00-95.00) pain, 87.00 (85.00-90.00) for functions, 81.00 (75.00-85.00) for sports and 94.00 (88.00-95.00) for QOL. HHS improved significantly from 36.88 ± 6.14 to 90.12 ± 6.56 (p < 0.001). The HHS of HRA group improved from 36.29 ± 5.83 to 89.38 ± 5.23 and THA group improved from 37.26 ± 6.22 to 90.94 ± 7.84. The 5-year radiological follow-up X-rays did not show any radiolucent line wider than 2 mm in all three zones of the acetabulum and no progressive subsidence or migration of > 1 mm and divergent radiopaque line in femur. The Implant survival rate for HRA was 100% at 5 years, 100% at 10 years, 92% at 15 years and THA group was 100% at 5 years and 90% at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed a disability rate of zero with improved HOSS and HHS. The overall implant survival rate was good with 100% at 5 years, 97% at 10 years and 89.9% at 15 years in contrast to the previous studies with the use of modern implants and newer standard surgical techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

A Level II study http://www.spine.org/Documents/LevelsofEvidenceFinal.pdf.

Long-term results of isolated acetabular revisions with reinforcement rings: a 10- to 15-year follow-up

PURPOSE

The management of severe acetabular bone deficiency and a stable femoral stem can be a challenging problem in revision hip surgery. Replacement of both the acetabular and femoral component in elderly patients can increase perioperative risks without the certainty of a better functional outcome. We report the long-term outcome of reinforcement rings in isolated acetabular revision to determine whether this procedure allows hip function restoration and implant longevity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the long-term results of isolated acetabular revision in thirty patients with a mean age of 70.6 years. 16 patients (16 hips) received an acetabular reinforcement ring, and 14 patients received a reconstruction cage. Acetabular defects were classified as Paprosky Type II in 16 cases and Type III in 14 cases. The mean follow-up was 11.3 years (range 10-15 years).

RESULTS

Radiographic signs of loosening were found in 9 cases (30%). 4 cases (13.3%) with severe osteolysis and implant migration underwent further revision surgery. All 30 unrevised femoral stems were considered stable. 1 (3%) early dislocation, was conservatively treated. Clinical assessment showed a significantly improved mean Harris Hip Score from 45.1 points preoperatively to 85.4 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.05). The 15-year survival rate was 86.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our long-term results showed that in selected patients, isolated acetabular revision with rings or antiprotrusio cages represents a reasonable surgical technique for the management of severe acetabular bone loss. However, concerns about the high radiographic loosening rates are possibly related to low bone ingrowth compared to new porous implants.

Long-Term Survival of Retained Cementless Hip Stems at an Average of 13 Years After Isolated Cup Revision

BACKGROUND

Cementless stems demonstrate excellent long-term survival, but little is known about the long-term survival rate of the stem after isolated cup revision. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to determine the long-term survival rate of cementless stems retained after prior cup revision.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and radiographic results of 119 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) utilizing a cementless, grit-blasted, tapered titanium femoral stem that were performed in 113 patients between January 1985 and December 1989. The mean age at the time of the primary THA was 52 years (range, 16 to 74 years) and the mean time between primary THA and cup revision was 13 years (standard deviation [SD], 6 years; range, 0 to 30 years). At the time of the latest follow-up, no patient was lost to follow-up, 36 patients representing 37 hips had died, and 11 hips in 11 patients had required stem revision. The mean follow-up was 13 years following cup revision (SD, 6 years; range, 0 to 28 years). A competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the survival of the stem after isolated cup revision, with death being the competing risk factor.

RESULTS

At 20 years after cup revision, the survival rate of retained stems was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79% to 94%) for the end point of stem revision for any reason and 97% (95% CI, 91% to 99%) for the end point of stem revision for aseptic loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term survival of cementless stems retained after cup revision was excellent. Well-fixed cementless stems should be retained during cup revision for aseptic loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

One-component revision in total hip arthroplasty: the fate of the retained component

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of the unrevised part in one-component total hip arthroplasty revision (index operation). Forty-four patients (46 hips) with a mean age of 58years at the time of the index operation were included. At the final follow-up, 4 of the 19 (21%) unrevised acetabular components and 6 of the 27 (22%) unrevised femoral components were subsequently revised at a mean time of 14 and 11years from the index operation, and 22 and 24years from the primary operation, respectively. We concluded that revision of a stable component is not justifiable on the basis of its long duration in use or non-ideal position or possible loosening on radiographs.

Acetabular revision arthroplasty: using the Hastings bipolar head to enable retention of a well-fixed monoblock stem

We describe a novel technique of combining the Hastings bipolar head, matched in size to the acetabular cup liner, with a fixed, cemented monoblock stem allowing for isolated uncemented acetabular revision arthroplasty.

AIM

To assess patient clinical and radiological outcomes after isolated uncemented acetabular revision arthroplasty using the Hastings bipolar head.

METHODS

Clinical outcome was assessed with the Oxford and WOMAC hip scores.
Radiographs were assessed preoperatively for acetabular defects. Post operative osseointegration of the acetabular cup was then classified and the femoral stem was examined for signs of loosening.

RESULTS

Nine acetabular components were revised in eight patients. Preoperative acetabular defects ranged from Paprosky type 1 to 3A. There were no significant intra or postoperative complications. At a mean final follow-up of 15 months, the Oxford hip score improved from an average of 17.5 preoperatively to 44.1, and the WOMAC score had improved from 44.1 to 90.9. Eight acetabular cups demonstrated three or more signs of osseointegration with the remaining cup showing two signs. There were no signs of loosening of the retained femoral stems.

CONCLUSION

These short term results of the use of the Hastings bipolar head in isolated uncemented acetabular revision arthroplasty demonstrate good patient outcomes, reduced morbidity, decreased technical difficulties for the surgeon and reduced expense for the health service.

Revision total hip arthroplasty using an alumina-on-alumina bearing surface in patients with osteolysis

We evaluated the outcomes of 64 consecutive revision total hip arthroplasties with an alumina-on-alumina bearing surface in 61 patients with osteolysis. No implants had been rerevised nor was osteolysis detected at a mean of 9.8 years (range, 7.0-13.1 years) postoperatively. There was 1 case of stem loosening but no cup loosening or alumina bearing fractures. Two surgical procedures were performed for an infection in 1 patient. Three dislocations occurred in 3 hips; all were treated with closed reduction and abduction bracing for 3 months. No further dislocations occurred. With any reoperation or radiographic evidence of osteolysis or loosening as the end point, the 7-year survival rate was 96.9% (95% confidence interval, 90.8%-100%). The alumina-on-alumina bearing surfaces used for revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteolysis were found to produce encouraging clinical results and implant survival rates at a minimum of 7 years postoperatively.

Should the well-fixed, uncemented femoral components be revised during isolated acetabular revision?

INTRODUCTION

The results of isolated acetabular revision performed in 35 patients (36 hips) were monitored from 3 to 10 years. All femoral components were well fixed and not removed or revised during index surgery.

METHOD

All revision acetabular implants were cementless, using a porous-coated hemispheric cup with or without bone graft. There were no cases of femoral component radiographic or clinical failure. For some cases, we performed bone grafting to focal osteolysis of the proximal femur around the cementless stem.

RESULTS

Bone incorporation occurred in 12 hips (overall 14). The mean pre- and postoperative Harris Hip Scores were 49 and 80, respectively. The findings suggest that isolated acetabular revision using a cementless porous-coated hemispheric cup can be performed without removing or revising a stable, well-fixed, uncemented femoral component if there is no concern about dislocation.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that isolated acetabular revision is feasible and that grafting to the osteolytic femoral defects is a worthwhile procedure to restore bone stock.