Does Approach Influence the Dislocation Rate Following Head and Liner Exchange in Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

A systematic review on revision total hip arthroplasty employing the direct anterior approach

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has extended to revision THA. This systematic review evaluated studies reporting both the utility and clinical outcomes of revision THA using DAA, focusing on studies comparing revision approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases identified 577 publications. 538 were excluded after abstract screening. Full-text review identified 21 studies with 1627 patients. All studies were retrospective, level IV evidence. MINORS criteria rated 14 as poor and seven as moderate. Five studies compared DAA to alternative approaches. Meta-analysis was not performed due to significant heterogeneity and lack of comparative studies.

RESULTS

The most common indications for revision were aseptic loosening (n = 929) and polyethylene wear (n = 158). The majority of the studies (n = 11/21) performed primarily acetabular revision or head-liner exchanges. Half the revisions (50.6%; n = 823/1627) included femoral revisions (35.2%; n = 573/1627) or combined femoral-acetabular revisions (15.4%; n = 250/1627). However, 80.6% (n = 462/573) of femoral revisions were from two non-comparative studies. Among the five comparative studies, two included femoral or combined revisions with significantly more performed using the posterior approach. Three of the five comparative studies did not find the DAA protective against postoperative dislocation. The overall complication rate was 14.0%; periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 106), dislocation (n = 80), and infection (n = 36) were most common. Fourteen studies reported patient-reported outcome measures, demonstrating consistent improvements following revision THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data on revision DAA THA are limited due to their retrospective nature. They demonstrate the ability to safely perform acetabular and head-liner revisions in carefully selected patients. Comparative studies lack femoral revisions, show a propensity for femoral fractures, and exhibit selection bias. Higher-quality, comparative prospective studies are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD4202236457.

Surgical Approach Does Not Influence Instability Risk in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although the direct anterior (DA) approach has increased in popularity for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is limited evidence regarding its use for revision THA. It is unknown whether the dislocation benefit seen in the primary setting translates to revision cases.

METHODS

This retrospective review compared the dislocation rates of revision THA performed through DA versus postero-lateral (PL) approaches at a single institution (2011 to 2021). Exclusion criteria included revision for instability, ≥ 2 prior revisions, approaches other than DA or PL, and placement of dual-mobility or constrained liners. There were 182 hips in 173 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 6.5 years (range, 2 to 8 years).

RESULTS

There was a trend toward more both-component revisions being performed through the PL approach. There were no differences in dislocation rates between the DA revision and PL revision cohorts, which were 8.1% (5 of 72) and 7.5% (9 of 120), respectively (P = .999). Dislocation trended lower when the revision approach was discordant from the primary approach compared to cases where primary and revision had a concordant approach (4.9 versus 8.5%), but this was not statistically significant (P = .740). No significant differences were found in return to operating room, 90-day emergency department visits, or 90-day readmissions. However, the length of stay was significantly shorter in patients who had DA revisions after a primary PL procedure (P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation rates following revision THA did not differ between the DA and PL approaches irrespective of the primary approach. Surgeons should choose their revision approach based on their experience and the specific needs of the patient.

Does the Primary Surgical Approach Matter When Choosing the Approach for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Multiple surgical approaches are used for primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study sought to investigate prevalence of discordance of pTHA and rTHA surgical approaches and to evaluate how approach concordance impacts postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent rTHA from 2000 to 2021 was conducted at 3 large urban academic centers. Patients who had minimum 1-year follow-up post-rTHA were included and grouped based on whether they received pTHA via a posterior (PA), direct anterior (DA), or laterally based (DL) approach, and by concordance of index rTHA approach with their pTHA approach. Of the 917 patients studied, 839 (91.5%) were included in the concordant cohort and 78 (8.5%) in the discordant cohort. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Discordance was most prevalent in the DA-pTHA subset (29.5%), compared to the DL-pTHA subset (14.7%) or PA-pTHA subset (3.7%). Discordance varied significantly between primary approaches among all revisions, with DA-pTHA patients having the highest discordance rate for patients revised for aseptic loosening (46.3%, P < .001), fracture (22.2%, P < .001), and dislocation (33.3%, P < .001). There were no differences between groups in dislocation rate, re-revision for infection, or re-revision for fracture.

CONCLUSION

The results of this multicenter study showed patients who received pTHA via the DA were more likely to receive rTHA via a discordant approach compared to other primary approaches. Since approach concordance did not impact dislocation, infection, or fracture rates after rTHA, surgeons can feel reassured using a separate approach for rTHA.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Dislocation After Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip

BACKGROUND

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a common treatment option for hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, noninfectious outcomes of DAIR such as instability are not well reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors for hip dislocation post-DAIR for PJI of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified all patients who underwent DAIR of a primary or revision THA over a 20-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up. A total of 151 patients met inclusion criteria, 19.9% of whom had a post-DAIR dislocation. Demographic and intraoperative variables were obtained. Patients who had modular components exchanged during DAIR to those with increased offset, increased "jump distance", or a more stable acetabular liner were defined as patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability." Predictors of hip dislocation post-DAIR were inserted into a multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Post-DAIR dislocation rates were 16.3% in primary THAs and 25.4% in revision THAs. In patients who had "components exchanged to increase stability" during hip DAIR, there was at least an 11-fold reduction (1/odds ratio (OR), 0.09) in dislocation risk compared to patients who had no components altered during modular component exchange during hip DAIR (OR, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.44; P < .001), while a 13-fold increased dislocation risk was seen in patients with a history of neuromuscular disease (OR, 13.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-104.09; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

During DAIR of hip PJI, surgeons should consider prophylactically exchanging components to increase stability even if components appear stable intraoperatively.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review

Introduction

Many studies have reported the clinical outcomes of a jumbo cup in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with acetabular bone defect. We conducted a systematic review to access the survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of a jumbo cup in rTHA.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed with the keywords (“revision” OR “revision surgery” OR “revision arthroplasty”) AND (“total hip arthroplasty” OR “total hip replacement” OR “THA” OR “THR”) AND (“jumbo cup” OR “jumbo component” OR “extra-large cup” OR “extra-large component”). Studies reporting the clinical or radiological outcomes were included. The basic information and radiological and clinical results of these studies were extracted and summarized for analysis.

Results

A total of 19 articles were included in the systematic review. The analysis of clinical results included 953 hips in 14 studies. The re-revision-free survivorship of the jumbo cup was 95.0% at a mean follow-up of 9.3 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection were the top three complications with an incidence of 5.9%, 3.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The postrevision hip center was relatively elevated 10.3 mm on average; the mean postoperative leg-length discrepancy was 5.4 mm.

Conclusion

A jumbo cup is a favorable option for acetabular bone defect reconstruction in rTHA with satisfying survivorship and acceptable complication rates.