Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: an analysis of 1,037 revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

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.

Indications, Clinical Outcomes, and Re-Revisions Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty - Does Age Matter?

BACKGROUND

Younger age is associated with increased revision incidence following primary total hip arthroplasty, though the association between age and repeat revision following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been described. This study aimed to describe the incidences and indications for subsequent revision (re-revision) following rTHA based on age.

METHODS

Patients undergoing aseptic rTHA from 2011 to 2021 with minimum 1-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on age at the time of index rTHA (ie, <55 years, 55 to 74 years, and >74 years). Perioperative characteristics, complications, and re-revisions were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of 694 included rTHAs, those in the >74 age group were more likely to undergo rTHA for periprosthetic fracture (P < .001) while those in the <55 age group were more likely to undergo rTHA for metallosis/taper corrosion (P = .028). Readmissions (P = .759) and emergency department visits (P = .498) within 90 days were comparable across ages. Rates of re-revision were comparable at 90 days (P = .495), 1 year (P = .443), and 2 years (P = .204). Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause re-revision at latest follow-up showed a nonstatistically significant trend toward increasing re-revisions in the <55 and 55 to 74 age groups. Using logistic regressions, smoking and index rTHA for instability were independently associated with re-revision, while age at index surgery was not.

CONCLUSIONS

While indications for rTHA differ across age groups, rates of 2-year re-revision are statistically comparable between groups. Further studies are warranted to understand the association between age, activity, and re-revision rates after 5 years postoperatively.

Validation of the Incidence of Reported Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND

Arthroplasty registers underreport the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We validated the incidence of reported PJIs in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) using data from the Dutch National Nosocomial Surveillance Network (PREZIES).

METHODS

All primary THAs and TKAs from the LROI and all primary THAs and TKAs performed in consenting hospitals from PREZIES between 2012 and 2018 were matched on date of birth, date of surgery, sex, hospital, and type of procedure (THA n = 91,208; TKA n = 80,304). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for PJIs registered in the LROI, using PREZIES as a reference.

RESULTS

The incidence of registered PJIs in THAs was 1.2% in PREZIES and 0.5% in the LROI. For TKAs, this was 0.7 and 0.4%, respectively. The PJIs in THAs in the LROI had a sensitivity of 0.32 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.29 to 0.35), specificity of 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), PPV of 0.74 (CI: 0.70 to 0.78), and NPV of 0.99 (CI: 0.99 to 0.99). In TKAs, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.38 (CI: 0.34 to 0.42), 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), 0.65 (CI: 0.59 to 0.70), and 1.00 (CI: 1.00 to 1.00), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LROI captures approximately one-third of the PJIs as revision within one year for infection or resection arthroplasty. The capture rate of PJIs can be improved by including all reoperations without component exchange and nonsurgical treatments with antibiotics only.

Machine Learning Did Not Outperform Conventional Competing Risk Modeling to Predict Revision Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Estimating the risk of revision after arthroplasty could inform patient and surgeon decision-making. However, there is a lack of well-performing prediction models assisting in this task, which may be due to current conventional modeling approaches such as traditional survivorship estimators (such as Kaplan-Meier) or competing risk estimators. Recent advances in machine learning survival analysis might improve decision support tools in this setting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the performance of machine learning compared with that of conventional modeling to predict revision after arthroplasty.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Does machine learning perform better than traditional regression models for estimating the risk of revision for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty?

METHODS

Eleven datasets from published studies from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register reporting on factors associated with revision or survival after partial or total knee and hip arthroplasty between 2018 and 2022 were included in our study. The 11 datasets were observational registry studies, with a sample size ranging from 3038 to 218,214 procedures. We developed a set of time-to-event models for each dataset, leading to 11 comparisons. A set of predictors (factors associated with revision surgery) was identified based on the variables that were selected in the included studies. We assessed the predictive performance of two state-of-the-art statistical time-to-event models for 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up: a Fine and Gray model (which models the cumulative incidence of revision) and a cause-specific Cox model (which models the hazard of revision). These were compared with a machine-learning approach (a random survival forest model, which is a decision tree-based machine-learning algorithm for time-to-event analysis). Performance was assessed according to discriminative ability (time-dependent area under the receiver operating curve), calibration (slope and intercept), and overall prediction error (scaled Brier score). Discrimination, known as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, measures the model's ability to distinguish patients who achieved the outcomes from those who did not and ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating the highest discrimination score and 0.50 the lowest. Calibration plots the predicted versus the observed probabilities; a perfect plot has an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score calculates a composite of discrimination and calibration, with 0 indicating perfect prediction and 1 the poorest. A scaled version of the Brier score, 1 - (model Brier score/null model Brier score), can be interpreted as the amount of overall prediction error.

RESULTS

Using machine learning survivorship analysis, we found no differences between the competing risks estimator and traditional regression models for patients undergoing arthroplasty in terms of discriminative ability (patients who received a revision compared with those who did not). We found no consistent differences between the validated performance (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of different modeling approaches because these values ranged between -0.04 and 0.03 across the 11 datasets (the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models across 11 datasets ranged between 0.52 to 0.68). In addition, the calibration metrics and scaled Brier scores produced comparable estimates, showing no advantage of machine learning over traditional regression models.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning did not outperform traditional regression models.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Neither machine learning modeling nor traditional regression methods were sufficiently accurate in order to offer prognostic information when predicting revision arthroplasty. The benefit of these modeling approaches may be limited in this context.

Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger

Background

The annual volume of patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty prior to age 60 is projected to increase considerably. Despite this, outcome data for revision THA in these younger patients remain limited. The purpose of this study was to define implant survivorship, identify risk factors for re-revision, and determine clinical outcomes of revision THA in patients aged ≤60 years.

Methods

We identified 191 revision THAs performed in patients aged ≤60 years. Minimum 4-year follow-up was obtained in 141 (73.8%) hips (mean 10.3 years [range, 4-20]). Mean age was 48 years (range, 20-60). Forty-five hips (32%) had previously been revised. Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (28%), polyethylene wear (26%), dislocation (20%), and infection (14%). Outcome measures were Kaplan-Meier survival free from re-revision and patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, UCLA).

Results

Survivorship free from re-revision for any cause was 78% [95% CI=70-85] at five years and 71% [62-78] at ten years. The most common indication for re-revision at both five and ten years was dislocation (12% [8-19], 16% [10-23]), followed by infection (6% [3-12], 10% [5-18]) and aseptic loosening (2% [1-7], 4% [1-11]). Mean scores were improved from baseline at six (mHHS +21.4, UCLA +0.9) and twelve years (mHHS +13.4, UCLA +0.5).

Conclusion

Revision THA in patients less than 60 years of age was associated with considerably lower rates of early loosening-related failure than historically reported. Recurrent dislocation and infection appear to remain challenges in this population. Despite improvements in survivorship from earlier studies, patient-reported functional improvements remained relatively unchanged. Level of Evidence: IV.

Wrist Arthritis and Arthrodesis: Preserving Function, Minimizing Problems

Wrist arthritis is a common condition with numerous causes and presentations. Several management options exist, and treatment should be individualized based on patient age, comorbidities, occupation, duration of symptoms, and failed treatment modalities. Arthroscopy and denervation are appealing because of shorter recovery time and preservation of motion, but duration of effectiveness varies between patients. Patients who fail these smaller procedures or those with pancarpal arthrosis are treated effectively with total wrist arthrodesis or total wrist arthroplasty in lower-demand patients. This article reviews causes and patterns of wrist arthritis and discusses treatment strategies aimed at preserving function and minimizing complications.

Revision risk of salvage compared with acute total hip arthroplasty following femoral neck fracture: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is no consensus on the treatment of patients with femoral neck fractures between internal fixation (IF) or directly treated with a total hip arthroplasty (fracture-THA) in particular for the age group 60-70 years. Failure of IF is not uncommon, resulting in salvage total hip arthroplasty (salvage-THA). The aim of our study was to compare revision rates of salvage-THA with fracture-THA and osteoarthritis (OA)-THA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Revision rates and reasons for revision were compared. Data collected in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2018 was used. The study included 4,310 salvage-THAs, 12,159 fracture-THAs, and 274,147 OA-THAs. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox regression to evaluate THA survival.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in revision rates between salvage-THAs and fracture-THAs was found (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.3) whereas the revision rate was higher compared with OA-THAs (HR 1.3, CI 1.0-1.5). The 5-year revision rate was 5.0% (CI 4.4-5.8) in salvage-THAs, 4.5% (CI 4.1-5.0) in fracture-THAs, and 3.1% (CI 3.0-3.2) in OA-THAs. A higher revision rate for infection was found in salvage-THAs in comparison with fracture-THAs (HR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.3).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in revision rates for salvage-THAs compared with fracture-THAs. The risk of revision for infection was higher for salvage-THA.

Optimization of Revision Hip Arthroplasty Workflow by Means of Detailed Pre-Surgical Planning Using Computed Tomography Data, Open-Source Software and Three-Dimensional-Printed Models

BACKGROUND

In revision hip arthroplasty (RHA), establishing the center of rotation (COR) can be technically challenging due to the acetabular bone destruction that is usually present, particularly in severe cases such as Paprosky type II and III defects. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the use of open-source medical image reconstruction software and low-cost 3D anatomical models in pre-surgical planning of RHA.

METHODS

A total of 10 patients, underwent RHA and were included in the study. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed for all cases, before surgery and approximately 1 week after the procedure. The reconstruction of CT data, 3D virtual planning of the COR and positioning of acetabular cups, including their inclination and anteversion angles, was carried out using the free open source software platform 3D Slicer. In addition, anatomical models of the pelvis were built on a desktop 3D printer from polylactic acid (PLA). Preoperative and postoperative reconstructed imaging data were compared for each patient, and the position of the acetabular cups as well as the COR were evaluated for each case.

RESULTS

Analysis of the pre- and post-op center of rotation position data indicated statistically insignificant differences for the location of the COR on the X-axis (1.5 mm, t = 0.5741, p = 0.5868) with a fairly strong correlation of the results (r = -0.672, p = 0.0982), whilst for the location of the COR in the Y and Z-axes, there was statistical dependence (Y axis, 4.7 mm, t = 3.168 and p = 0.0194; Z axis, 1.9 mm, t = 1.887 and p = 0.1081). A strong correlation for both axes was also observed (Y and Z) (Y-axis, r = 0.9438 and p = 0.0014; Z-axis, r = 0.8829 and p = 0.0084). Analysis of inclination angle values showed a statistically insignificant difference between mean values (3.9 degrees, t = 1.111, p = 0.3092) and a moderate correlation was found between mean values (r = -0.4042, p = 0.3685). Analysis of the anteversion angle showed a statistically insignificant difference between mean values (1.9 degrees, t = 0.8671, p = 0.4192), while a moderate correlation between mean values was found (r = -0.4782, p = 0.2777).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional reconstruction software, together with low-cost anatomical models, are very effective tools for pre-surgical planning, which have great potential use in orthopedic surgery, particularly RHA. In up and in- and up and out-type defects, it is essential to establish a new COR and to identify three support points within the revision acetabulum in order to correctly position acetabular cups.

The iliac stemmed cup in reconstruction of the acetabular defects secondary to tumor resection: a systematic review of literature

INTRODUCTION

Stemmed acetabular cups are suitable for reconstruction in case of important bone loss. Nevertheless, their use is not so common, because generally judged very invasive and technically difficult to implant. The aim of the present review is to verify the results of their use and to evaluate indications and complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature research was performed in the main healthcare databases; indications, surgical technique, related complications, functional results and implant survival were valued and analyzed for every selected paper.

RESULTS

13 studies were selected, for a population of 424 patients and 428 hips. The main indication was reconstruction after tumor removal; the primary non-oncologic indication was revision for aseptic loosening. The most frequent complications were aseptic loosening and implant failure (16.2%), followed by deep infection (11.3%) and dislocation (9.8%). The average MSTS score was 65.9%; while data regarding functional results for degenerative cases are quite fragmented. The 5-years implant survival was 73.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Data regarding SAC prostheses are quite rare in the literature; no prospective studies with comparisons with other reconstruction techniques are available so their use is mainly based on the experience of single centers. While data for tumors are more consistent and supported by studies, information on revisions of hip prosthesis implanted for degenerative problems is quite scarce. Preliminary results on the SAC prosthesis as a valid alternative both for tumoral and degenerative revision cases are encouraging. Prospective randomized studies are advocated to value results compared to alternative techniques.

Hip Arthroscopy in the Presence of Advanced Osteoarthritis Results in 57% Survivorship, With 78% Survivor Satisfaction, at 10 Years. A Matched-Control Study

PURPOSE

To (1) determine the 10-year survivorship (avoidance of total hip arthroplasty, THA) for patients with advanced osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement, and (2) compare survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a matched-control group without OA.

METHODS

Advanced OA hips (Tönnis ≥2) were matched in a 1:1 ratio (age ± 5 years, sex) to hips with preoperative Tönnis grade ≤1. Exclusion criteria was dysplasia, age <18 years, previous hip conditions/surgeries, and bilaterally operated patients with OA on one side only. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis for levels of sex, age groups and Tönnis. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HR) of undergoing THA conversion. Where THA was avoided, outcomes and proportion of cases achieving patient acceptable symptomatic state was determined RESULTS: 53 OA hips were matched with 53 control hips. Survival distributions were significantly different for: (1) Group: OA 57.1%, control 87.0% (P = .001); (2) Tönnis grade: Tönnis 0, 89.2%; Tönnis 1, 77.8%; Tönnis 2, 67.6%; Tönnis 3, 25.0% (P < .001); and (3) age: (OA: 75.0% vs 44.8%, control: 100%, vs 75.0%, for <35 and >35 years respectively) (P = .002). Conversion to THA was greater for increasing Tönnis: HR 1.9 (P = .450), 3.5 (P = .032), and 11.0 (P < .001) for Tönnis 1, 2, and 3 respectively, relative to no OA (Tönnis 0) and >35 years: HR 4.3 (95% confidence interval 1.6-11.3, P = .003). Patient acceptable symptomatic state achievement was similar for both groups (78% OA vs 91% control, P = .167). modified Harris Hip Score and Short Form-36 significantly improved within both groups from baseline to 10 years CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic correction of femoroacetabular impingement, in the presence of advanced OA results in 57% survivorship at 10 years (68% Tönnis 2, 25% Tönnis 3). Where THA was avoided, 78% considered their 10-year post-HA state to be satisfactory, with patient-reported outcomes similar to a matched non-OA cohort. Tönnis 2 in particular should be considered for arthroscopic hip preservation to avoid the need to prematurely replace the hip joint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

[Pitfalls in revision hip arthroplasty]

Significant key points for a successful revision surgery in hip arthroplasty are as follows: identification of the implants, preoperative clinical diagnoses, planning (including alternatives) as well as establishing a surgical strategy, selection of revision implants and provision with special tools, secure fixation of acetabular and femoral components and the reconstruction of a stable joint without risk of dislocation or impingement. It seems to be obvious that most problems can be avoided by clear and concise decision-making. Some tips and tricks are also presented.

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of a Novel 3D-printed Fully Porous Titanium Acetabular Shell in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Fully porous acetabular shells are an appealing choice for patients with extensive acetabular defects undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study reports on the early outcomes of a novel 3-D printed fully porous titanium acetabular shell in revision acetabular reconstruction.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective study of patients who received a fully porous titanium acetabular shell for rTHA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up was conducted. The primary outcome was rate of acetabular revision.

Results

The final study cohort comprised 68 patients with a mean age of 67.6 years (standard deviation 10.4) and body mass index of 29.5 kg/m² (standard deviation 5.9). Ninety-four percent had a preoperative Paprosky defect grade of 2A or higher. The average follow-up duration was 3.0 years (range 2.0-5.1). Revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 81% for all causes, 88% for acetabular revisions, and 90% for acetabular revision for aseptic acetabular shell failure. Eight shells were explanted within 2 years (12%): 3 for failure of osseointegration/aseptic loosening (4%) after 15, 17, and 20 months; 3 for infection (4%) after 1, 3, and 6 months; and 2 for instability (3%). At the latest postoperative follow-up, all unrevised shells showed radiographic signs of osseointegration, and none had migrated.

Conclusions

This novel 3-D printed fully porous titanium shell in rTHA demonstrated good survivorship and osseointegration when used in complex acetabular reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years.

Level of evidence

IV, case series.

What Is the Outcome of the First Revision Procedure of Primary THA for Osteoarthritis? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Joint arthroplasty registries traditionally report survivorship outcomes mainly on primary joint arthroplasty. The outcome of first revision procedures is less commonly reported, because large numbers of primary procedures are required to analyze a sufficient number of first revision procedures. Additionally, adequate linkage of primary procedures to revisions and mortality is required. When undertaking revision hip surgery, it is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes of these procedures to better inform patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using data from a large national joint registry, we asked: (1) What is the overall rate of revision of the first aseptic revision procedure for a primary THA? (2) Does the rate of revision of the first revision vary by the diagnosis for the first revision? (3) What is the mortality after the first revision, and does it vary by the reason for first revision?

METHODS

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The analyses for this study were performed on primary THA procedures in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis up to December 31, 2020, who had undergone subsequent revision. We excluded all primary THAs involving metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal bearing surfaces and prostheses with exchangeable necks because these designs may have particular issues associated with revisions, such as extensive soft tissue destruction, that are not seen with conventional bearings, making a comparative analysis of the first revision involving these bearing surfaces more complicated. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces have not been used in Australia since 2017. We identified 17,046 first revision procedures from the above study population and after exclusions, included 13,713 first revision procedures in the analyses. The mean age at the first revision was 71 ± 11 years, and 55% (7496 of 13,713) of the patients were women. The median (IQR) time from the primary procedure to the first revision was 3 years (0.3 to 7.3), ranging from 0.8 years for the diagnosis of dislocation and instability to 10 years for osteolysis. There was some variation depending on the reason for the first revision. For example, patients undergoing revision for fracture were slightly older (mean age 76 ± 11 years) and patients undergoing revision for dislocation were more likely to be women (61% [2213 of 3620]). The registry has endeavored to standardize the sequence of revisions and uses a numerical approach to describe revision procedures. The first revision is the revision of a primary procedure, the second revision is the revision of the first revision, and so on. We therefore described the outcome of the first revision as the cumulative percent second revision. The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the second revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. When possible, the cumulative percent second revision at the longest follow-up timepoint was determined with the available data, and when there were insufficient numbers, we used appropriate earlier time periods.

RESULTS

The cumulative percent second revision at 18 years was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24% to 28%). When comparing the outcome of the first revision by reason, prosthesis dislocation or instability had the highest rate of second revision compared with the other reasons for first revision. Dual-mobility prostheses had a lower rate of second revision for dislocation or instability than head sizes 32 mm or smaller and when compared to constrained prostheses after 3 months. There was no difference between dual-mobility prostheses and head sizes larger than 32 mm. There were no differences in the rate of second revision when first revisions for loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and osteolysis were compared. If cemented femoral fixation was performed at the time of the first revision, there was a higher cumulative percent second revision for loosening than cementless fixation from 6 months to 6 years, and after this time, there was no difference. The overall mortality after a first revision of primary conventional THA was 1% at 30 days, 2% at 90 days, 5% at 1 year, and 40% at 10 years. A first revision for periprosthetic fracture had the highest mortality at all timepoints compared with other reasons for the first revision.

CONCLUSION

Larger head sizes and dual-mobility cups may help reduce further revisions for dislocation, and the use of cementless stems for a first revision for loosening seems advantageous. Surgeons may counsel patients about the higher risk of death after first revision procedures, particularly if the first revision is performed for periprosthetic fracture.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and re-revision rates are not associated with the indication for revision total hip arthroplasty : a prospective evaluation of 647 consecutive patients

AIMS

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years' follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859-866.

The Length of Diaphyseal Contact of Tapered Fluted Stems is Highly Dependent on Canal Morphology

BACKGROUND

Diaphyseal fixation remains the mainstay of revision THA. The stability of diaphyseal fixation can be quantified by the extent of contact between the stem and the endosteal cortex. This is highly affected by the morphology of the proximal femur. The purpose of this study was to examine factors affecting diaphyseal contact in the revision THA and to identify preoperative predictors of adequate fixation.

METHODS

Three-dimensional femur models were created from CT scans of 33 Dorr B and C femora. The proximal 120 mm of the femur was omitted to mimic proximal bone deficiency. A tapered fluted stem (3 degrees, 150 mm) model was virtually implanted after reaming of the medullary canal. The contact length between stem and endosteal cortex was measured, in addition to other variables. The relationship between variables was evaluated using Spearman's correlation, and logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of the contact length (P < .05).

RESULTS

The contact length varied widely between specimens (66.5 ± 16.6 mm, range: 21-98 mm). Contact increased with the depth of the isthmus below the lesser trochanter (range: 55-155 mm; r² = 0.473, P = .005) and the distance between the isthmus and the distal edge of the damage zone (range: -9 to 96 mm; r² = 0.508, P = .002). Stepwise regression identified the reaming length, distance between fracture and the isthmus, and isthmus diameter as independent predictors of contact length (r = 0.643).

CONCLUSIONS

Contact is limited in specimens where the isthmus is more proximally located. In these cases, supplementary fixation using plating and/or longer, curved prosthesis may be considered.

How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry

Background

Hip replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of the replacements failing, requiring costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of hip revision surgery.

Methods

We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored.

Findings

Between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6-24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3-24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3-27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6-28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0-25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9-30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision.

Interpretation

Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. Although hip replacements are effective for improving pain and function and usually last a remarkably long time, if they are revised, successive revisions are progressively and markedly less successful.

Funding

NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership; and the National Joint Registry.

Uncemented Cups and Impaction Bone Grafting for Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Rationale, Indications, and Outcomes

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly performed in young patients and the number of revisions is estimated to rise over time. Acetabular osteolysis and bone loss are frequently encountered during revision and may be classified and treated in different ways. Impaction bone grafting (IBG) with morselized allograft offers a viable option. IBG was introduced over 40 years ago in combination with cemented cups, and is also used with uncemented cups. The impacted bone chips act as a void filler to restore bone stock; once incorporated they are substituted by host bone. Surgery entails assessment of the defect, acetabular preparation, preparation of the morselized graft, impaction of the graft, and cup implantation. Satisfactory medium- and long-term results have now been reported in most studies. With the advent of high-porosity cups, indications have been extended, enhancing the potential of IBG, in which primary stability of the cup to the host bone is essential for a successful procedure. Synthetic bone substitutes have also been used in combination with allogenic grafts and may extend the original technique for which long-term studies are warranted.

The outcome of subsequent revisions after primary total hip arthroplasty in 1,049 patients aged under 50 years : a single-centre cohort study with a follow-up of more than 30 years

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution.

METHODS

All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients at the time of the initial THA was 38.6 years (SD 9.3). The mean follow-up of the THA was 8.7 years (2.0 to 31.5). The rate of survival for all primary THAs, acetabular components only, and femoral components only at 20 years' follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason, was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5 to 72.2), 69.1% (95% CI 63.0 to 74.4), and 83.2% (95% CI 78.1 to 87.3), respectively. A total of 138 revisions were performed. The mean age at the time of revision was 48.2 years (23 to 72). Survival of all subsequent revision procedures, revised acetabular, and revised femoral components at 15 years' follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason was 70.3% (95% CI 56.1 to 80.7), 69.7% (95% CI 54.3 to 80.7), and 76.2% (95% CI 57.8 to 87.4), respectively. A Girdlestone excision arthroplasty was required in six of 860 patients (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcome of cemented primary and subsequent revision THA is promising in these young patients. We showed that our philosophy of using impaction bone grafting in patients with acetabular and femoral defects is a very suitable option when treating young patients. Surgeons should realize that knowledge of the outcome of subsequent revision surgery, which is inevitable in young patients, must be communicated to this group of patients prior to their initial THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):368-375.

Overstretching Expectations May Endanger the Success of the “Millennium Surgery”

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an extremely successful treatment strategy. Patient expectations, however, have increased; if not properly guided by surgeons, at present, patients expect next to pain-free restoration of the joint and a fast return to work and sports. While the revision rates after THA also increased in younger patients, knowledge on musculoskeletal loads still remains sparse, and the current recommendations on postoperative rehabilitation are based on expert opinions only. The aim of this study was to unravel biomechanical contact conditions in “working age” (&lt;60 years, 53.5 ± 3.0 years) and “retirement age” (&gt;60 years, 67.7 ± 8.6 years) patients during activities recommended post-THA. We hypothesized that working age patients would show substantially increased hip contact loads compared to older patients. The in vivo joint contact force (Fres) and torsion torque (Mtors), reflecting the main contact load situation, experienced during activities of daily living and sports activities were measured in a unique group of 16 patients with instrumented THA. We summarized patient activities and sports recommendations after THA mentioned within the literature using PubMed (without claim of completeness). The measurements showed that younger working age patients experienced significant (p = 0.050) increased Mtors (21.52 ± 9.11 Nm) than older retirement age patients (13.99 ± 7.89 Nm) by walking. Bowling, as a recommended low-impact sport, was associated with Fres of up to 5436 N and Mtors of up to 108 Nm in the working age group, which were higher than the Fres (5276 N) and Mtors (71 Nm) during high-impact soccer. Based on our results, age was proven to be a discriminator in joint loading, with working age patients presenting with increased loads compared to retirement age patients, already during daily activities. The current patient recommendations have led to further increased joint loadings. If THA cannot be delayed in a patient, we propose counselling patients on a carefully considered return to sports, focusing on low-impact activities, as indicated hereby. The findings from this work illustrate the need to provide critical feedback to patient expectations when returning to work and sports activities. Patients returning to more intensive sports activities should be carefully monitored and advised to avoid as much overloading as possible.

Outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients: a systematic review

To report clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary THA using three-dimensional (3D) image-based custom stems.

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020216079). A search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane. Clinical studies were included if they reported clinical or radiographic outcomes of primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems. Studies were excluded if specific to patients with major hip anatomical deformities, or if not written in English.

Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 1936 hips). There was considerable heterogeneity in terms of manufacturer, proximal geometry, coating and length of custom stems. Revision rates ranged from 0% to 1% in the short-term, 0% to 20% in the mid-term, and 4% to 10% in the long-term, while complication rates ranged from 3% in the short-term, 0% to 11% in the mid-term and 0% to 4% in the long-term. Post-operative Harris hip scores ranged from 95 to 96 in the short-term, 80 to 99 in the mid-term, and 87 to 94 in the long-term. Radiographic outcomes were reported in eleven studies, although none reported 3D implant sizing or positioning, nor compared planned and postoperative hip architecture.

Primary THA using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients provides limited but promising clinical and radiographic outcomes. Despite excellent survival, the evidence available in the literature remains insufficient to recommend their routine use. Future studies should specify proximal geometry, length, fixation, material and coating, as well as management of femoral offset and anteversion. The authors propose a classification system to help distinguish between custom stem designs based primarily on their proximal geometry and length.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1166-1180. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210053

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.

The FAITH and HEALTH Trials: Are We Studying Different Hip Fracture Patient Populations?

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, 2 randomized controlled trials were performed to evaluate 2 surgical strategies (internal fixation and arthroplasty) for the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures in patients aged ≥50 years. We evaluated whether patient populations in both the FAITH and HEALTH trials had different baseline characteristics and compared the displaced femoral neck fracture cohort from the FAITH trial to HEALTH trial patients.

METHODS

Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and fracture characteristics from both trials were compared. FAITH trial patients with displaced fractures were then compared with HEALTH patients. T-tests and χ tests were performed to compare differences for sex, age, osteoporosis status, and ASA class.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 1079 FAITH trial patients was 72 versus 79 years for the 1441 HEALTH trial patients. HEALTH patients were older, mostly White, used more medication, and had more comorbidities than FAITH patients. Of the 1079 FAITH trial patients, 32% (346/1079) had displaced fractures. Their mean age was significantly lower than that of HEALTH patients (66 vs. 79 years; P < 0.001). HEALTH trial patients were significantly more likely to be female, have ASA classification Class III/IV/V, and carry a diagnosis of osteoporosis, as compared with the subgroup of FAITH patients with displaced femoral neck fractures (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant differences between patients enrolled in the 2 trials. Although both studies focused on femoral neck fractures with similar enrollment criteria, patient populations differed. This sheds light on a noteworthy limitation of discordant patient enrollment into randomized trials, despite similar eligibility criteria.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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