Stay Short or Go Long? Can a Standard Cemented Femoral Prosthesis Be Used at Second-Stage Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision for Infection Following an Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy?

Does size matter? Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty with long or primary stems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Femoral reconstruction with long stems is widely accepted as the standard in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, long stems can be technically challenging to insert and can compromise bone stock for future revision. This study aimed to identify whether there was a difference in outcomes with using a long versus primary or short femoral stem in revision.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all articles comparing long and primary stem length in rTHA for Paprosky 1-3B femoral defects. The primary outcome measure was the reoperation rate after rTHA. Secondary outcomes included infection and dislocation rates, periprosthetic fracture, loosening, mortality, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

RESULTS

The results of 3,102 rTHAs performed in 2,982 patients were reported from 9 eligible studies in the systematic review, of which 6 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean patient age was 67.4 and the mean follow-up lasted 5 years (range, 1-15 years). There was no significant difference in the reoperation rate (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.17, P = 0.63). Similarly, there was no significant difference in dislocation or periprosthetic fracture risk. Harris Hip Score was better with primary stems by a mean difference of 14.4 points (P < 0.05). Pooled 5-year stem-related survival was 91.3% ± 3.5% (SD) for primary stems and 89.9% ± 6.7% (SD) for long stems.

CONCLUSIONS

A primary stem provided non-inferior outcomes compared with long stems in rTHA with Paprosky type 1-3B femoral defects. Primary stems may yield a more straightforward technique and preserve distal bone stock for future revision particularly in younger patients. In older patients with lower functional demands and who would benefit from a decreased risk of complications, a long cemented stem is recommended.

Extended trochanteric osteotomy is a safe procedure in two-stage hip revision: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) has proved to be an effective technique in complicated stem removal in femoral aseptic loosening or periprosthetic fracture. Debate remains about its safety in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The primary aim of this study is to analyze the ETO reinfection and union rate in two-stage hip revision.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed regarding all studies reporting ETO outcomes in the two-stage revision for hip PJI up to October 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. A literature search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE/EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Quality assessment of the articles was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected.

RESULTS

This systematic review included and analyzed nine clinical studies with a total of 382 ETO PJI hips in two-stage revision. The overall ETO reinfection rate was 8.9% (34 hips), consistent with the reinfection rate after two-stage revision in patients without ETO. The overall ETO union rate was 94.8% (347 hips), comparable to the ETO union rate in non-septic patients. Compared between a group of patients with ETO PJI and a group of patients with non-PJI ETO, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications, both septic and aseptic, and for postoperative HHS.

CONCLUSION

ETO proved to be a safe and effective procedure in PJI revisions. It may be a viable option in challenging femoral stem removal during the two-stage hip revision in PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach using primary femoral stems at 2-8 years of follow-up

INTRODUCTION

To report clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) through the direct anterior approach (DAA) using primary stems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors assessed a consecutive series of revision THAs operated by DAA using primary (cemented and uncemented) stems between 1/1/2010 and 30/06/2017. The initial cohort comprised 47 patients (50 hips), aged 65 ± 10 years with BMI of 25 ± 4 kg/m2. Clinical assessment included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and satisfaction with surgery. Radiographic assessment included radiolucent lines > 2 mm, bone remodelling, cortical hypertrophy, pedestal formation, and osteolysis. Linear regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 50 hips (47 patients) in the initial cohort, intraoperative complications that did not require re-revision occurred in 5 hips. At a follow-up of > 2 years: 5 hips (10%) were lost to follow-up and 3 hips (6%) required stem re-revision, leaving a final cohort of 42 hips (40 patients). Postoperative complications that did not require re-revision occurred in 4 hips (8%). At 4.3 ± 1.6 years, post-revision mHHS was 89 ± 14 (range 47-100) and 38 patients were satisfied or very satisfied with revision surgery. Bone remodelling was observed in 8 hips (16%), cortical hypertrophy in 6 hips (12%), grade I heterotopic ossification in 7 hips (14%), and grade II in 1 hip (2%). There were no cases of radiolucent lines, pedestal formation, or osteolysis. Regression analyses revealed that post-revision mHHS was not associated with any variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision THA performed through the DAA using primary stems grants satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes at a minimum follow-up of two years.

The use of a standard-length conical tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty to address Paprosky type I-II femoral defects: a prospective study of 87 patients

INTRODUCTION

Low-grade femoral defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) might be preferably treated with a primary implant. Almost no previous study reported the use of standard-length conical tapered (SLCT) stems in these cases. We analyzed a series of cases using a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects. The purpose of the study was to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes in this series of rTHA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively followed 87 patients undergoing a femoral component rTHA: 53 Paprosky type I and 34 type II femoral defects. Patient-reported measures (Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, VAS pain during rest and activity) were administered at baseline, 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Radiographic subsidence overtime was scored. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the subsidence over time, the complication-free survival, and the implant survivorship with reoperation and stem revision as endpoints.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 72.5 (SD ± 23.9) months. All PROMs significatively improved over time. The average subsidence was 2.8 (SD ± 3.2), 3.6 (SD ± 4.4), and 4.0 (SD ± 4.9) mm at 4, 12, and 24 months respectively. 6 stems had subsidence > 10 mm. The survival without complication was 0.85 (95% CI 0.94-0.77), while the implant survival without reoperation was 0.83 (95% CI 0.95-0.72). The overall stem survival rate was 93.7% (95% CI 0.91-0.97) at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The use of a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects demonstrated good survival with low subsidence rates during the first 2 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider the use of this primary prosthesis as a potential treatment during stem revision in cases with limited femoral bone loss.

Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in 2-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) has long been used in 2-stage revision surgeries of the hip, for both aseptic and septic indications. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the cumulative occurrence rates of the clinical and functional outcomes associated with the use of ETO in 2-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched for articles published from January 1980 to January 2022 using the following keywords: "extended" AND "trochanteric" AND "osteotomy" AND "infection." Cumulative occurrence rates of outcomes and complications were calculated. A fixed-effects model and a 95% CI were applied. A P value of .05 was considered the significance threshold.

RESULTS

Nine studies were in full compliance with the inclusion criteria, with a total population size across all studies of 378. Union and infection eradication rates among studies were 95.1% (95% CI, 92.7-97.1, P = .018) and 94.0% (95% CI, 91.1-96.4, P = .089), respectively. Postoperation complications occurred in 15.34% of patients (95% CI, 10.34-21.22, P = .066). Occurrence rates for stem subsidence, dislocation, and femoral fractures were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.3-9.9, P = .187), 7.6% (95% CI, 4.8-10.9, P = .075), and 9.1% (95% CI, 5.8-13, P = .106), respectively.

CONCLUSION

With high rates of union and infection eradication, and low rates of postoperation complications, this study concludes the use of ETO in performing 2-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for the septic hip to be effective and safe.

Systemic antibiotics are not required for successful two-stage revision hip arthroplasty

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into 'successful' or 'unsuccessful'. A total of 299 two-stage revision THAs in 289 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 258 (86%) proceeded to second-stage surgery. Their mean age was 68.1 years (28 to 92). The median follow-up was 10.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 6.3 to 15.0). A 91% success rate was seen in those patients who underwent reimplantation, decreasing to 86% when including those who did not proceed to reimplantation. The median duration of postoperative systemic antibiotics following the first stage was five days (IQR 5 to 9). There was no significant difference in outcome between those patients who were treated with antibiotics for ≤ 48 hours (p = 0.961) or ≤ five days (p = 0.376) compared with those who were treated with longer courses. Greater success rates were seen for Gram-positive PJIs (87%) than for Gram-negative (84%) and mixed-Gram PJIs (72%; p = 0.098). Aggressive surgical debridement with a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics at the time of first-stage revision surgery for PJI of the hip, without prolonged systemic antibiotics, provides a high rate of success, responsible antibiotic stewardship, and reduced hospital costs.

Extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a case series study and systematic literature review

Background

Extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) in revision hip arthroplasty provides direct access to the femoral medullary canal and facilitates removal of implants and re-implantation. This study looks at objective outcomes of ETO from a systematic review of the literature and a case series of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases with ETOs from the authors’ local institution.

Methods

(1) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) national library of medicine was searched for studies related to ETO and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) technique were followed.

(2) Case series of 23 revision THAs with ETOs from University College London Hospital (UCLH) were retrospectively analyzed with a minimum of 2-year follow-up for radiological outcomes.

Results

(1) The main revision THAs diagnoses were aseptic loosening (880/1,386; 63.4%), prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (301/1,386; 21.7%) and periprosthetic THA fractures (78/1,386; 5.6%). Other diagnoses, including non-specified reasons for THA revision in the chosen studies, accounted for 9.2% (127/1,386). The total mean was a union rate of 95.2%, an infection eradication rate of 91.6%, a femoral stem subsidence rate of 16.6%, with the rate of subsidence more than 5 mm being 10.7%. ETO proximal migration was reported in 7.8% of ETOs; however, it rarely required re-attachment (0.9%). Intraoperative fracture during revision THA with ETO was reported to be at a rate of 5%; while postoperative femoral fracture rate was at 7.8%.

(2) All 24 cases had radiographic union at 3 to 6 months and there was no reported femoral stem subsidence.

Conclusion

The overall outcome of this literature review provides moderate-quality evidence indicating that ETO provides safe outcome for revision THAs in single and 2-stage revision surgeries with low ETO non-union, femoral stem subsidence, greater trochanter (GT) proximal migration and fracture rates in the different diagnoses groups of revision THA at over 2-year follow up. In the case series group, there was radiographic union of all ETOs with no reported femoral stem subsidence or periprosthetic fractures.

Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Intermediate Resection Arthroplasty Is Safe for Use in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

Background: This study sought to compare the results of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients with and without the use of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) for removal of a well-fixed femoral stem or cement. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had undergone an ETO as part of a two-stage revision without spacer placement were matched 1:2 with a cohort of sixty-four patients of the same sex and age who had stem removal without any osteotomy. Clinical outcomes including interim revision, reinfection and aseptic failure rates were evaluated. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Minimum follow-up was two years. Results: Patients undergoing ETO had a significantly lower rate of interim re-debridement compared to non-ETO patients (0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.026). Reinfection following reimplantation was similar in both groups (12.5% in ETO patients vs. 9.4% in non-ETO patients, p = 0.365). Revision for aseptic reason was necessary in 12.5% in the ETO group and 14.1% in the non-ETO group (p = 0.833). Periprosthetic femoral fractures were seen in three patients (3.1%), of which all occurred in non-ETO patients. Dislocation was the most common complication, which was equally distributed in both groups (12.5%). The mean mHHS was 37.7 in the ETO group and 37.3 in the non-ETO group, and these scores improved significantly in both groups following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusion: ETO without the use of spacer is a safe and effective method to manage patients with well-fixed femoral stems and for thorough cement removal in two-stage revision THA for PJI. While it might reduce the rate of repeated debridement in the interim period, the use of ETO appears to lead to similar reinfection rates following reimplantation.

High Rates of Spacer Fracture in the Setting of Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy With a Specific Thin-Core Articulating Antibiotic Hip Spacer

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision remains the standard of care for prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. However, there are substantial complications associated with articulating antibiotic hip spacers. Handmade and molded spacers have been shown to have higher rates of spacer fracture than antibiotic-coated prostheses (ACPs). The aim of this study is to review outcomes with an implant that is often categorized as an ACP spacer, the Zimmer-Biomet StageOne Select Femoral Spacer (ZBSO).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 63 patients who underwent placement of a ZBSO. Patients were compared based on whether or not an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) was performed using Fisher's exact and t-tests.

RESULTS

Five patients were excluded due to lack of follow-up or death shortly after stage 1 surgery, leaving 58 patients. Spacer fracture was noted in 5 of 58 patients (8.6%). Sixteen patients underwent ETO and 25.0% suffered a spacer fracture compared to 2.3% without ETO (odds ratio 13.7, P = .0248). There was no association between patient demographics or ETO length and spacer fracture. Two patients had periprosthetic fractures (3.4%) and 4 had dislocations (6.9%). Forty-nine patients (84.4%) went on to second-stage revision; of those 26.5% failed to clear the infection and required an average of 2.2 additional surgeries.

CONCLUSION

The ZBSO spacer has overall complication rates similar to previously reported spacer series. Although the ZBSO looks like an ACP spacer, in the setting of ETO, it behaves like a molded or handmade spacer with a high rate of spacer fracture (25%) due to the small diameter of the core. This implant should be used with caution in combination with an ETO.

Trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty

Trochanteric osteotomy is a technique that allows expanded exposure and access to the femoral canal and acetabulum for a number of indications.There has been renewed interest in variants of this technique, including the trochanteric slide osteotomy (TSO), extended trochanter osteotomy (ETO), and the transfemoral approach, for both septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).Osteotomy fixation is crucial for achieving union, and wire and cable-plate systems are the most common techniques.TSO involves the creation of a greater trochanter fragment with preserved abductor attachment proximally and vastus lateralis attachment distally.This technique may be particularly useful in the setting of abductor deficiency or when augmented acetabular exposure is needed.ETO is a posterior-laterally based extensile approach that has been successfully utilized for aseptic and septic indications; most series report a greater than 90% rate of union.The transfemoral approach, as known as the Wagner osteotomy, is an extensile femoral approach and is more anterior-based than the alternate posterior-based ETO. It may be particularly useful for anterior-based approaches and anterior femoral remodelling; rates of union after this approach in most reports have been close to 100%. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:477-485. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190063.

Extended trochanteric osteotomy: improving the access and reducing the risk in revision THA

This review article presents a comprehensive literature review regarding extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO).

The history, rationale, biomechanical considerations as well as indications are discussed.

The outcomes and complications as reported in the literature are presented, discussed and compared with our own practice.

Based on the available evidence, we present our preferred technique for performing ETO, its fixation, as well as post-operative rehabilitation.

The ETO aids implant removal and enhanced access. Reported union rate of ETO is high. The complications related to ETO are much less frequent than in cases when accidental intra-operative femoral fracture occurred that required fixation.

Based on the literature and our own experience we recommend ETO as a useful adjunct in the arsenal of the revision hip specialist.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:104-112. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190005

Current Uses of the Transtrochanteric Approach to the Hip: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The indications and technique for the transtrochanteric approach to the hip have evolved greatly since its initial popularization in the 1960s. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess current uses of this approach on the basis of indications, osteotomy technique, trochanteric fixation method, complications, and functional outcome.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 2000 to July 2017 was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were divided into 3 major categories on the basis of the type of hip surgery performed: (1) primary arthroplasty, (2) revision arthroplasty, and (3) joint-preserving procedures. Patient data were then analyzed according to these 3 categories.

RESULTS

Seventy-six studies (5,028 hips), mainly of Level-IV evidence, were included. Four types of osteotomy were reported for a variety of indications. Rates of nonunion were 6.0% (303 of 5,028) across all studies, 4.2% (39 of 921) for primary arthroplasty, 6.7% (114 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty, and 4.4% (56 of 1,278) for joint-preserving procedures. Rates of dislocation were 1.5% (14 of 921) for primary arthroplasty and 4.6% (77 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty. The rate of osteonecrosis after joint-preserving procedures was 1.1% (14 of 1,278). Rates of deep infection were 1.1% (55 of 5,028) across all studies, 0.1% (1 of 921) for primary arthroplasty, 2.1% (36 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty, and 0.6% (8 of 1,278) for joint-preserving procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The transtrochanteric approach remains useful in cases requiring extensile exposure of the acetabulum or femoral medullary canal. However, trochanteric complications continue to pose a clinical challenge.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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