Outcome of Dual Mobility Constructs for Adverse Local Tissue Reaction Associated Abductor Deficiency in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Dual-mobility implants in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common and successful operation. However, dislocation remains a significant cause of implant failure in fixed-bearing designs. This study investigated the effect of dual-mobility implants (DM) compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants on all-cause revisions, revisions due to dislocation, post-operative complications and functional scores in patients undergoing primary and revision THA.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including studies that compared DM with FB implants in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023403736). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from the time of database inception to March 12, 2023. Eligible studies underwent meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a random-effects maximum-likelihood, where appropriate.

Results

Eight comparative, non-randomised studies involving 2810 DM implants and 3188 FB implants were included. In primary THA, there was an imprecise estimate of the difference in all-cause revision (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.25-2.72) and a significant benefit for the DM cohort in revision due to dislocation (OR 0.08, 95 % CI 0.02-0.28). In revision THA, the DM cohort showed benefit in all-cause revision (OR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.31-1.05) and revision due to dislocation (OR 0.14, 95 % CI 0.04-0.53). DM implants were associated with a lower incidence of implant dislocation and infection. The analysis of functional outcomes was limited due to reporting limitations. No intraprosthetic dislocations were observed.

Conclusion

The results suggest that contemporary DM designs may be advantageous in reducing the risk of all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, and post-operative complication incidence at mid-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term risk profile of this design, especially in the revision context.

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements with dual-mobility bearings and acetabular component retention

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years).

Results

In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)).

Conclusion

In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications.

Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age: Results of >500 Cases

BACKGROUND

There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure.

METHODS

We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings

PURPOSE

Revision of failed large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure particularly to reconstruct acetabular bone defect due to osteolysis and to achieve hip stability due to soft tissue damages, both potentially caused by adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of dual mobility cup (DMC) constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with a special attention to the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 57 patients (64 THAs, 41 men, mean age = 65 ± 10 years) underwent revision for MoM THA with the use of DMC were prospectively included in our total joint registry. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years. The causes for revision were adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in 49 THAs (76%), painful hip with elevated blood cobalt-chromium ions in seven (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight (13%). The revision was complete in 22 THAs (34%) and acetabular only in 42 (66%). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-revisions were evaluated at most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up of six ± 1.5 years, the pre- to postoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 74 ± 19 to 92 ± 4 (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 11 cases (17%): five dislocations (8%), three periprosthetic infections (5%), two aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3%), and two periprosthetic fractures (3%). Re-revision was required in six cases (9%).

CONCLUSION

The use of DMC is a reliable option to prevent instability and ensure a stable acetabular reconstruction in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings. However, dislocation after revision remains a concern, particularly in cases of severe soft tissue damage related to ARMD.

A geometric assessment method for estimating dimensional change of retrieved dual mobility liners for total hip arthroplasty

Despite their emerging use, the current understanding of the in-vivo functional mechanisms of Dual Mobility (DM) Total Hip Replacements (THRs) is poor, and current characterisation methodologies are not suitable for the unique function and design of these types of devices. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a geometric characterisation methodology to estimate dimensional change across the articulating surfaces of retrieved DM polyethylene liners so that their invivo function may be better understood. The method involves the acquisition of three-dimensional coordinate data from the internal and external surfaces of DM liners. The data is processed using a bespoke MATLAB script which approximates the unworn reference geometry of each surface, calculates geometric variance at each point and produces surface deviation heatmaps so that areas of wear and/or deformation may be visualised across the implant. One as-manufactured and five retrieved DM liners were assessed, which demonstrated the efficacy, repeatability and sensitivity of the developed method. This study describes an automated and non-destructive approach for assessing retrieved DM liners of any size and from any manufacturer, which may be used in future research to improve our understanding of their in-vivo function and failure mechanisms.

Dual-Mobility Versus Large Femoral Heads in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Interim Analysis of A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluated if dual-mobility bearings (DM) lower the risk of dislocation compared to large femoral heads (≥36mm) for patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterior approach.

METHODS

A total of 146 Patients were randomized to a DM (n=76; 46 mm median effective head size, range 36 to 59 mm) or a large femoral head (n=70; twenty-five 36 mm heads [35.7%], forty-one 40 mm heads [58.6%], and four 44mm heads [5.7%]). There were 71 single-component revisions (48.6%), 39 both-component revisions (26.7%), 24 reimplantations of THA after 2-stage revision (16.4%), seven isolated head and liner exchanges (4.8%), four conversions of hemiarthroplasty (2.7%), and one revision of a hip resurfacing (0.7%). Power analysis determined that 161 patients were required in each group to lower the dislocation rate from 8.4 to 2.2% (power=0.8, alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

At a mean of 18.2 months (range, 1.4 to 48.2), there were three dislocations in the large femoral head group compared to two in the DM cohort (4.3 vs. 2.6%; P=0.67). One patient in the large head group and none in the DM group were successfully treated with closed reduction without subsequent revision.

CONCLUSION

Interim analysis of this randomized controlled trial found no difference in the risk of dislocation between DM and large femoral heads in revision THA, although the rate of dislocation was lower than anticipated and continued follow up is needed.

Risk Stratification and Pain Outcomes Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Adverse Local Tissue Reactions

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) secondary to head-neck taper corrosion is associated with a high complication rate. Diagnosis of ALTR is based on risk stratification using the patient's history and examination, implant risk, serum metal ion levels, and imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine if stratification using similar risk factors is predictive of outcomes following revision THA for metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) ALTR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review on 141 patients revised for ALTR due to head-neck taper corrosion. Pain outcomes following surgery were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model. Complications were defined as instability/dislocation, infection, fracture, nerve palsy, leg-length discrepancy, or reoperation.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 17.7%. The odds of having pain decreased by 44% after revision surgery (Odds Ratio = 0.56, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.324 to 0.952). There was no significant difference in instability/dislocation based on either increased or decreased head-neck offset (P = .67) or magnetic resonance imaging findings of abductor loss, effusion size, and degree of ALTR (P = .73). Increased serum cobalt (P = .31) and chromium (P = .08) levels did not predict complications; however, a decreased cobalt-chromium ratio was associated with postoperative complications (2.8 versus 3.5; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

These findings are the first to suggest that patients who have ALTR after MoP THA undergoing revision surgery demonstrated major pain relief. Increasing femoral head offset did not change rates of instability/dislocation. In clinical scenarios where preoperative cobalt-chromium femoral head offsets were greater than available ceramic head offsets, a mandatory decrease in femoral head offset did not increase rates of instability/dislocation.

Monobloc press-fit cups with large-diameter bearings are safe in revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability is a major cause of failure of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) which can be avoided with the use of monobloc press-fit cups with large diameter heads (LDH).

OBJECTIVE

This consecutive case series analyses whether LDH monobloc components are a safe and clinically beneficial option for revision THA.

METHODS

This consecutive case series includes 47 revision THA with LDH monobloc acetabular cup. Acetabular bone defects were Paprosky type I (42), type IIA (2) and type IIC (3). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and the Patient's Joint Perception (PJP) scores were analysed and a radiographic evaluation for signs of implant dysfunction was performed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, there were 5 (10.6%) acetabular cup re-revisions: 2 loss of primary fixation and 3 instabilities. Implant survivorship at 4-years was 89.4% (95% CI: 89.3 to 89.5). Recurrent hip dislocation was reported in 1 patient (2.1%) and remains under conservative treatment. The mean WOMAC and FJS were 19.5 (16.8; 0.0 to 58.3) and 57.3 (28.9; 6.3 to 100.0), respectively. Regarding the PJP, 3 (8.8%) patients perceived their hip as natural, 8 (23.5%) as an artificial joint with no restriction, 14 (41.2%) with minor restriction and 9 (26.5%) with major restriction.

CONCLUSION

In cases of revision THA with limited bone loss, press-fit primary fixation with LDH monobloc acetabular components are valuable options that offer excellent mid-term out-comes with low re-revision and joint instability rates.

Constrained acetabular liners are a viable option in second-stage re-implantation for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty with abductor or greater trochanter deficiency and large acetabular bone defects

Background

Abductor mechanism deficiency is a clear indication for using constrained acetabular liners (CALs), and large acetabular bone defects are considered a relative contraindication to CALs. We report the results of using CALs in special cases in which abductor or greater trochanter deficiency was accompanied by large acetabular bone defects at second-stage re-implantation for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

Between January 2010 and January 2018, 19 patients who used CALs at second-stage re-implantation and had abductor or greater trochanter deficiency and large acetabular bone defects were included in this study. We followed up with the clinical and radiological results of these patients. Complications and infection-related information were also recorded.

Results

Eight patients, 4 patients, and 7 patients had Paprosky type IIB, type IIC, and type IIIA acetabular bone defects at second-stage re-implantation, respectively. The indication for using CALs was abductor deficiency in 14 patients and greater trochanter deficiency in the other 5 patients. The mean follow-up was 74.4 months (range 50–96). The mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 76.3 points (range 62–86) at the last follow-up. Three patients presented acetabular radiolucent lines with no progress: zone 3, zone 3 and zone 2 and 3, respectively. One patient suffered transient sciatic nerve palsy. There was no dislocation, failure of the CALs, reoperation, or recurrence of infection.

Conclusion

Our results suggested that for screened patients, CALs are a viable option in second-stage re-implantation for chronic infected THA with abductor or greater trochanter deficiency and large bone defects.

Metal Articulations as a Source of Total Hip Arthroplasty Pain

The consensus systematic risk stratification algorithm from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and The Hip Society summarizes clinical challenges in evaluation and treatment of metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients with adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) due to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC), reviews up-to-date evidence, and identifies the areas for future research in order to provide a useful resource for orthopedic surgeons providing care to these patients. A painful THA has various intrinsic and extrinsic causes. ALTR is one of the intrinsic causes in patients with painful THA. The occurrence of ALTR due to MACC at modular junctions is likely to be multifactorial, including implant, surgical, and patient factors. Therefore, a systematic evaluation needs to involve a focused clinical history, detailed physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging in order to identify potential differential diagnoses. There should be a low threshold to perform a systematic evaluation of patients with painful non-metal-on-metal THA, including patients with metal-on-polyethylene THA, and modular dual-mobility THA with the CoCr metal acetabular insert, as early recognition and diagnosis of ALTR due to MACC will facilitate initiation of appropriate treatment prior to significant adverse biological reactions. Specialized tests such as blood metal analysis and metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging are important modalities in evaluation and management of ALTR in patients with painful THA.

Outcome and risk factors of failures associated with revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Diagnosis and Treatment Options of Abductor Insufficiency After Total Hip Replacement

Abductor insufficiency can cause abnormal gait, lateral hip pain, and abduction weakness in both native and prosthetic hips. In the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA), abductor insufficiency may occur secondary to iatrogenic injury to the superior gluteal nerve or gluteus medius muscle, adverse local tissue reactions owing to metal-associated prosthetics, and osteolysis owing to bearing wear or infection. Surgical reconstruction of the abductor complex is indicated for patients with chronic tears who have pain, weakness, limp, and/or instability. This article reviews the pearls and pitfalls of surgical reconstruction options for abductor insufficiency following THA.

In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size?

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings.

CONCLUSION

Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Dual-mobility constructs versus large femoral head bearings in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate.

RESULTS

9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1-1.20; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings.

Lumbar Spine Fusion Before Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Increased Dislocation Rates

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether timing of lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) before revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) would impact dislocation and rerevision rates.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis includes a total of 505 patients who underwent revision THA with concomitant diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Patients were stratified into the following two cohorts: (1) 328 patients who underwent revision THA with previous LSF and (2) 177 patients who underwent revision THA, followed by LSF. Postoperative complications including dislocation and rerevision rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent revision THA with previous LSF demonstrated significantly higher dislocation rates and rerevision rates compared with patients who underwent revision THA, followed by LSF, at the 1-year follow-up (6.7% versus 5.1%, P < 0.01; 8.5% versus 7.0%, P = 0.02). Patients who underwent revision THA, followed by LSF within 1 year demonstrated significantly higher dislocation and rerevision rates (5.6% versus 4.1%; 7.6% versus 6.4%).

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that patients who underwent revision THA with previous LSF demonstrated notably higher dislocation rates and rerevision rates compared with patients who underwent revision THA, followed by LSF, with the greater the intervals between revision THA and LSF, the lower the postoperative dislocation rates and rerevision rates.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.

RESULTS

There were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Impact of Smoking and Drinking on Complications After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Smoking and drinking have been shown to impair postoperative outcomes in primary hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study aimed to evaluate the potential impact of smoking and drinking on complications after revision TJA.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a total of 4,302 consecutive patients who underwent revision TJA. Patient demographics and complications were compared between four cohorts based on smoking and drinking status: (1) nonusers (nonsmokers and nondrinkers), (2) smokers, (3) drinkers, and (4) concurrent users.

RESULTS

A total of 1,924 patients were matched using propensity score analysis: 808 nonusers (42.0%), 421 smokers (21.9%), 483 drinkers (25.0%), and 212 concurrent users (11.1%). When compared with nonusers, smokers, drinkers, and concurrent users (simultaneous smokers and drinkers) exhibited higher odds for both inhospital complications (odds ratios, smokers: 2.40, drinkers: 1.55, and concurrent users: 5.13, P < 0.01). Among the user cohorts, although smokers and drinkers showed similar rates of 90-day postdischarge complications (smokers: 14.95% and drinkers: 14.80%, P = 0.95), concurrent users demonstrated the highest significant odds for these complications (odds ratio, 1.64, P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION

Our propensity-score-matched cohort study results demonstrate that although the smokers and drinkers groups shared similarly poor outcomes after discharge, concurrent users were found to have the worst outcomes compared with either single user group.

Dual Mobility Reduces Dislocations-Why I Use It in All Revisions

BACKGROUND

Instability remains the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and presents a unique treatment dilemma for the orthopedic surgeon. Dual mobility (DM) bearing articulations have been used in France since the 1970s, but have only become more widely adopted in the United States over the last decade. The purpose of this symposium was to discuss the role for DM bearings in revision THA.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing literature on outcomes after DM bearing articulations in revision THA. We also report several case examples of the use of DM in difficult revision THA cases, including acetabular bone loss, failed constrained liner, and adverse local tissue reaction. Finally, we briefly discuss the limitations associated with the use of DM.

RESULTS

Several large retrospective series demonstrate that DM bearings reduce the incidence of dislocation after revision THA when compared with conventional single bearing THA. Specific complications related to DM bearings including polyethylene wear, loosening, intraprosthetic dislocation, and corrosion remain a concern, but appear to have drastically improved over time with modern implant designs.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary DM designs have been established as an effective bearing option to reduce instability in revision THA, although concerns do exist. High-quality prospective studies are necessary to further define the role this bearing option has in the coming years.

Outcome of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Spinal anesthesia has been previously shown to offer improved patient outcomes compared with general anesthesia in revision total knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the potential differences in perioperartive and postoperative outcomes in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) between spinal or general anesthesia.

METHODS

A total of 2,656 consecutive patients who underwent revision THA were evaluated. Propensity-score-adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to control for intergroup variability and evaluate the differences in outcomes and complications with anesthesia type.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 1:1 matching with 265 patients in each anesthesia cohort. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that patients administered general anesthesia had a significantly longer procedure time (174.8 versus 161.3, P < 0.01), higher intraoperative (402.6 versus 305.5 mL, P < 0.01), and total perioperative blood loss (1802.2 versus 1,684.2 mL,P < 0.01). In addition, patients administered general anesthesia were found to have higher odds for two or more inhospital complications (odds ratio, 4.51, P < 0.01) and extended length of stay (odds ratio, 2.45, P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION

Our study shows that propensity-matched patients who received spinal anesthesia for revision THA exhibited notable reduction in surgical time, perioperative blood loss, and complications compared with patients who received general anesthesia, suggesting that spinal anesthesia is a viable alternative to general anesthesia in revision THA.

Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of dislocation mechanism in dual mobility total hip arthroplasty constructs

Dual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with reduced dislocation rates; however, the kinematic mechanism of dislocation in DM THA constructs is still not well understood. This study hypothesizes that the difference in kinematics between DM THA and conventional THA designs contributes to reduced dislocation rates of DM THA. In addition, this study aims to quantify and compare those kinematic parameters between DM THA and conventional THA using a validated dual fluoroscopy imaging system (DFIS) and finite element (FE) modelling. Fresh frozen cadavers were measured to compare the impingement-free range of motion and provocative subluxation kinematics among three THA constructs: (1) DM, (2) constrained liner (CS), and (3) 36 mm head diameter neutral liner (NL). The DFIS was used to measure the in vitro kinematics of the hip. Subject-specific FE models were developed to assess the horizontal dislocation distance and resistive torque at dislocation. The DM construct head exhibited increased provocative anterior and posterior subluxation range of motion before dislocation when compared to CS constructs (p = .05; p = .03), as well as NL constructs (p = .05). The DM THA showed a significantly larger posterior horizontal dislocation distance, as well as smaller resistive torque at dislocation, when compared to NL (p = .05; p = .03) and CS constructs (p = .04; p = .01). Our findings demonstrate there was increased provocative subluxation range of motion as well as normalized jump distance for the DM constructs compared to the NL and CS constructs, suggesting the DM THA may provide increased stability hip during at-risk functional hip positions.

Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aims of this meta-analysis were to: (1) validate the outcome of modern dual mobility (DM) designs in patients who had undergone primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures and (2) to identify factors that affect the outcome.

Methods

We searched for studies that assessed the outcome of modern DM-THA in primary and revision procedures that were conducted between January, 2000 to August, 2020 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews and Embase. The pooled incidence of the most common failure modes and patient reported outcomes were evaluated in patients who have received: (1) primary THA, (2) revision THA for all causes or (3) for recurrent dislocation. A meta-regression analysis was performed for each parameter to determine the association with the outcome. The study design of each study was assessed for potential bias and flaws by using the quality assessment tool for case series studies.

Results

A total of 119 studies (N= 30016 DM-THAs) were included for analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 47.3 months. The overall implant failure rate was 4.2% (primary: 2.3%, revision for all causes: 5.5%, recurrent dislocation: 6.0%). The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (primary: 0.9%, revision for all causes: 2.2%, recurrent dislocation: 2.4%), septic loosening (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes: 2.3%, recurrent dislocation: 2.5%), extra-articular dislocation (primary:0.6%, revision for all causes:1.3%, recurrent dislocation:2.5%), intra-prosthetic dislocation (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes:1.0%, recurrent dislocation:1.6%) and periprosthetic fracture (primary:0.9%, revision for all causes:0.9%, recurrent dislocation:1.3%). The multi-regression analysis identified younger age (β=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 – -0.02) and female patients (β=3.34, 95% CI 0.91–5.78) were correlated with higher implant failure rate. Age, gender, posterolateral approach and body mass index (BMI) were not risk factors for extra-articular or intra-prosthetic dislocation in this cohort. The overall Harris hip score and Merle d’Aubigné score were 84.87 and 16.36, respectively. Level of evidence of this meta-analysis was IV.

Conclusion

Modern dual-mobility designs provide satisfactory mid-term implant survival and clinical performance. Younger age and female patients might impact the outcome after DM-THA. Future research directions should focus on, (1) long-term outcome of modern dual-mobility design, including specific concerns such as intra-prosthetic dislocation and elevated metal ion, and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis of dual-mobility implant as an alternative to conventional THA for patients who are at high risk of dislocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.

Patient-reported Outcomes Associated With Preoperative Opioid Use in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Opioid use is a public health crisis in the United States and an area of increased focus within the arthroplasty literature. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of preoperative opioid use on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before and after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A total of 381 consecutive revision THA patients with both preoperative and postoperative PROMs were identified. Because of differences in baseline characteristics, 104 opioid users were matched to 208 nonusers using nearest-neighbor propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Propensity score-matched opioid users had significantly lower preoperative PROMs than the nonuser for hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function (53.2 versus 60.1, P < 0.01) and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) short form (SF) Physical (38.5 versus 43.2, P < 0.01). Postoperatively, opioid users demonstrated significantly lower scores across all PROMs: hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function (58.1 versus 70.0, P < 0.001), PROMIS SF Physical (40.3 versus 48.4, P < 0.001), and PROMIS SF Mental (43.7 versus 53.2, P < 0.001). Propensity score-matched opioid users demonstrated an increased hospital stay (P = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

Revision THA patients who use opioids preoperatively have notably lower preoperative and postoperative outcome scores compared with propensity score-matched nonusers. As opioid use has the potential to be a modifiable factor, it would be important to counsel patients on the benefit of minimizing or eliminating opioid use preoperatively to optimize outcome after revision THA.

Minority Race and Ethnicity is Associated With Higher Complication Rates After Revision Surgery for Failed Total Hip and Knee Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and postoperative outcomes have wide-reaching implications for patients and the health care system. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of ethnicity on clinical outcomes and complications following revision hip and knee TJA.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 4424 revision hip and knee TJA patients was evaluated. Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis were used to identify significant differences in patient demographics and clinical outcomes between Caucasians and various ethnic minorities, including African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.

RESULTS

When compared with white patients, African American patients demonstrated a significantly higher BMI (P = .04), ASA score (P = .04), length of hospital stay (P = .06), and postoperative infection rates (P = .04). Hispanics demonstrated a significantly higher BMI (P = .04), when compared with white patients, alongside a significantly higher risk for postoperative infection (P < .01). African American demonstrated a significantly higher ASA score (P = .02; P = .03), when compared with Hispanics and Asians, alongside a significantly increased length of stay (P = .01) and higher risk for postoperative infection (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The study findings demonstrate an underutilization of revision TJA by ethnic minority groups, suggesting that disparities in access to orthopedic surgery increase from primary to revision surgery despite higher failure rates of minority ethnic groups reported after primary TJA surgery. In addition, inferior postoperative outcomes were associated with African Americans and Hispanics, when compared to white patients, with African Americans demonstrating the highest risk of postoperative complications.

Risk Stratification Algorithm for Management of Head-Neck Taper Tribocorrosion in Patients with Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty: Consensus Statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and The Hip Society

Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) were initially reported as complications associated with metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings; however, there is increasing concern regarding the occurrence of adverse local tissue reactions from mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC) at the femoral head-neck junction or between other modular junctions of the implant containing cobalt chromium parts in patients with metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings. ALTR due to MACC at the head-neck junction has primarily been reported in association with cobalt chromium alloy femoral heads. As pain following total hip arthroplasty may have various intrinsic and extrinsic causes, a systematic approach to evaluation (risk stratification algorithm) based on the currently available data is recommended to optimize patient management. Evaluation should begin by ruling out common causes of pain, including component loosening and periprosthetic joint infection. While specialized tests such as blood metal analysis and metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS MRI) are useful modalities in evaluating for ALTRs, over-reliance on any single investigative tool in the clinical decision-making process should be avoided. There should be a low threshold to perform a systematic evaluation for ALTR due to MACC in patients with metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty as early recognition and diagnosis is critical, as delays in appropriate treatment initiation may result in soft-tissue damage, which complicates surgical treatment and is associated with a higher risk of complications and poorer patient outcomes.

Development of a Preoperative Risk Calculator for Reinfection Following Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

A recent systematic review demonstrated that reinfection rates following eradication of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be as high as 29%. This study aimed to develop a preoperative risk calculator for assessing patient's individual risk associated with reinfection following treatment of PJI in total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A total of 1081 consecutive patients who underwent revision TJA for PJI were evaluated. In total, 293 patients were diagnosed with TJA reinfection. A total of 56 risk factors, including patient characteristics and surgical variables, were evaluated with multivariate regression analysis. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was performed to evaluate the strength of the predictive model.

RESULTS

Of the 56 risk factors studied, 19 were found to have a significant effect as risk factor for TJA reinfection. The strongest predictors for TJA reinfection included previous PJI treatment techniques such as irrigation and debridement, the number of previous surgical interventions, medical comorbidities such as obesity, drug abuse, depression and smoking, as well as microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species. The combined area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of the risk calculator for periprosthetic hip and knee joint reinfection was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings demonstrate that surgical factors, including previous PJI surgical treatment techniques as well as the number of previous surgeries, alongside microbiology including the presence of Enterococcus species have the strongest effect on the risk for periprosthetic THA and TKA joint reinfection, suggesting the limited applicability of the existing risk calculators for the development of PJI following primary TJA in predicting the risk of periprosthetic joint reinfection.