Constrained Acetabular Components Used in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Analysis

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.

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.

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.

Standard, Large-Head, Dual-Mobility, or Constrained-Liner Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for a Diagnosis of Dislocation: An Analysis of 1,275 Revision Total Hip Replacements

BACKGROUND

Dislocation remains a leading cause of revision following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of second revision THA following a major first revision for the treatment of dislocation using an implant with a standard, large head, dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 through December 2018. All primary THAs that had been performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis and subsequently revised for dislocation were included. All revision THA prostheses with a standard head (≤32 mm), large head (≥36 mm), dual-mobility, or constrained acetabular liner that were used for the first revision procedure were identified. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative rates of second revisions for all causes and for a subsequent diagnosis of dislocation for the 4 different constructs used in the first revision.

RESULTS

A total of 1,275 hips underwent a major first revision because of prosthesis dislocation, with 203 of these hips going on to have a second revision. The rate of all-cause second revision was significantly higher in the standard-head group compared with the constrained-acetabular-liner group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 2.30]; p = 0.044). There was no difference in the rates of revision between other articulations. The most common cause of second revision for all implants was dislocation. There were a total of 91 second revisions for a diagnosis of dislocation. Standard heads had a higher rate of second revision compared with constrained acetabular liners (HR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60]; p = 0.005), dual-mobility implants (HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.03 to 4.01]; p = 0.039), and large heads (HR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.09, 2.99]; p = 0.022). There was no difference in the rates of second revision between other articulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons have a number of options for prostheses when performing a first revision for the treatment of dislocation following a primary THA. The most common cause of a second revision is recurrent dislocation. The use of constrained acetabular liners, dual-mobility liners, and large heads (≥36 mm) are options for reducing subsequent dislocation. Standard head sizes have a higher rate of second revision for further dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

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

Causes of and treatment options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty

The second most common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is dislocation. The majority of dislocations occur early in the post-operative period and are due to either patient-associated or surgical factors. The patient-associated factors that have been implicated as causes of post-operative dislocation include previous surgery, lumbar spine fusion surgery and/or neurological impairment. The surgical factors include surgical approach, component orientation and prosthetic and/or bony impingement. In order to delineate the cause of the hip instability a thorough history and physical and a radiographic assessment (possibly including advanced imaging) needs to be performed. Approximately two thirds of cases are successfully treated; one third of cases will require surgical treatment (e.g., revision arthroplasty (including constrained liners, the use of elevated rim liners and dual mobility implants or trochanteric advancement). In this review, we discuss the causes leading to dislocation following THA and evaluate the different treatment options available.

What Is the Frequency of Early Dissociation of Bipolar Cups and What Factors Are Associated With Dissociation?

BACKGROUND

Dissociation between a prosthetic cup and femoral head is a rare complication of bipolar hemiarthroplasty that usually occurs during closed reduction of a dislocated bipolar cup. The dissociation usually results in reoperation because closed reduction is challenging. To our knowledge, no study has reported on the frequency of bipolar cup-femoral head dissociation, and risk factors for dissociation are unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the frequency of dissociation of prosthetic femoral heads from bipolar cups during manual reduction of a dislocated bipolar hemiarthroplasty; and (2) to explore in a preliminary fashion any prosthesis or patient factors that may be associated with dissociation.

METHODS

From May 2003 to August 2016, 60 bipolar hemiarthroplasties were treated at three institutions as a result of early (within 3 years) dislocation after arthroplasty; of these, 55 could be identified and categorized in terms of the type of locking mechanism used, and these were the patients evaluated in this retrospective study. Because the index hemiarthroplasties were not performed exclusively at the three participating centers, we cannot comment on the indications for prosthesis selection in these patients (such as why some patients may have received components with single rather than double locking mechanisms). Manual reduction was attempted in all patients. Although 34 dislocations were manually reduced, 21 hips underwent surgical intervention because they could not be closed reduced (14 hips) or because of bipolar cup-femoral head dissociation (seven hips). We compared patients' demographics and prosthetic factors between the dissociation group (n = 7) and the nondissociation group (n = 48).

RESULTS

Bipolar cup-femoral head dissociation occurred in seven of 55 patients with dislocations (13%). Among the seven dissociated cups, six had a single polyethylene locking ring, whereas 20 of 48 nondissociation cups (42%) had the single locking ring (p = 0.044). We found no other patient or prosthesis factors associated with dissociation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar cups with a single locking mechanism (rather than a double locking mechanism) may be associated with an increased risk of bipolar cup-femoral head dissociation. However, because we could not evaluate prosthesis indications in this study, and because our sample size was too small to control for potential confounding variables, future studies are needed to confirm this finding. All the same, because good alternatives are available, we do not recommend the use of this type of locking mechanism in bipolar hemiarthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.