What Is the Survivorship of Revision Surgery Performed for the Chronically Dislocated THA?

New Ceramic Heads With Titanium Sleeves on Retained Femoral Components: Results of Over 500 Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Ceramic heads are frequently combined with titanium sleeves in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs), ostensibly to protect the ceramic head from existing damage to the retained trunnion. Although widely adopted, data on the performance and safety of this construct are minimal. The purpose of this study was to describe implant survivorships, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent revision THA with a ceramic head and titanium sleeve on a retained femoral component.

METHODS

We identified 516 revision THAs with femoral component retention (328 acetabular-only revisions and 188 bearing surface exchanges) treated with a new ceramic head and titanium sleeve between 2000 and 2020. Mean age at revision was 64 years, 56% were women, and mean body mass index was 30. The indications for revision THA were adverse local tissue reaction (25%), acetabular loosening (24%), dislocation (17%), infection (5%), and other (29%). Kaplan-Meier survivorships were analyzed, radiographs reviewed, and Harris Hip Scores evaluated. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2 to 10).

RESULTS

There were no reoperations or failures for ceramic head fracture, taper corrosion, or head/sleeve disengagement. The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 85%. Indications for the 57 re-revisions included dislocation (33), infection (13), acetabular component loosening (7), periprosthetic fracture (2), psoas impingement (1), and sciatic nerve irritation (1). The 10-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 82%. There were an additional 14 reoperations. Radiographically, 1.9% had progressive femoral radiolucent lines, and 4.7% had progressive acetabular radiolucent lines. Mean Harris Hip Score was 81 at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

New ceramic heads with titanium sleeves in revision THAs with retained femoral components were durable and reliable with no cases of ceramic head fracture or taper complications at mean 4-year follow-up, including those revised for adverse local tissue reaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Do patient-reported outcome measures improve after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) changes in: (1) pain, function and global health; and (2) predictors of PROMs in patients undergoing aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) using a multilevel model with patients nested within surgeon.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 216 patients with baseline and 1-year PROMs who underwent aseptic rTHA between January 2016 and December 2017 were analysed. The most common indication for rTHA was aseptic loosening, instability, and implant failure. The PROMs included in this study were HOOS Pain and HOOS Physical Function Short-form (PS), Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (MCS). Multivariable linear regression models were constructed for predicting 1-year PROMs.

RESULTS

Mean 1-year PROMs improvement for aseptic revisions were 30.4 points for HOOS Pain and 22.1 points for HOOS PS. Predictors of better pain relief were patients with higher baseline pain scores. Predictors of better 1-year function were patients with higher baseline function and patients with a posterolateral hip surgical approach during revision. Although VR-12 PCS scores had an overall improvement, nearly 50% of patients saw no improvement or had worse physical component scores. Only 30.7% of patients reported improvements in VR-12 MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients undergoing aseptic rTHA improved in pain and function PROMs at 1 year. Although global health assessment improved overall, nearly half of aseptic rTHA patients reported no change in physical/mental health status. The associations highlighted in this study can help guide the shared decision-making process by setting expectations before aseptic revision THA.

Effect of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Ceramic Acetabular Component on Clinical, Radiographic and Functional Parameters in Older Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: Two-Year Follow-Up

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a widely used surgical procedure to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life in patients with hip disorders. The most common condition that leads to THA is osteoarthritis, with most surgeries being performed to treat severe osteoarthritis with pain and functional limitations. Despite the evident success of THA, the search for its improvement and better results, especially in the long term, continues, especially in older patients, for which there is still little scientific evidence. Objective: To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and functional aspects preoperatively and two years after THA with a ceramic acetabular component device in older patients with hip osteoarthritis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate 65 older individuals who underwent THA of the hip with an acetabular component (MD® ceramic head with a ceramic acetabular insert) associated with the MD6® Phenom® femoral rod type, in Hospital of the Luz, São Paulo/SP, between 2018 and 2019. Anthropometric and clinical information about the operative procedure and two years follow-up were collected from the patients’ medical records. For the clinical-functional evaluation, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) questionnaire and hip movement goniometry were applied. For the radiographic parameters, the following were evaluated: the positioning of the acetabular component, the Zone of DeLee and the offset of the femoroacetabular component. Results: There was a higher prevalence of performing THA in males (53.8%). Preoperative and two-year postoperative radiographic parameters of surgical treatment for THA showed maintenance of the acetabular (p = 0.083) and femoral (p = 0.102) positioning angles and increased functionality (p < 0.001) and joint mobility of the hip (p = 0.001) with reduced pain after two years of THA. Complications related to dislocation, loosening, infection, and inadequate positioning of the implant were low, ranging from 1.5 to 3%. Conclusion: Older people who underwent cementless THA with an ceramic acetabular component device, in a two-year follow-up, showed effectiveness in improved clinical, radiological, and functional aspects.

Effect of placement of acetabular prosthesis on hip joint function after THA

The good recovery of hip function after THA depends on reconstruction of acetabular prosthesis accurately. So we investigated the effect of acetabular prosthesis placement on hip joint function after THA and analyzed the clinical data of 432 patients with unilateral THA retrospectively . The patients were followed-up to evaluate the Harris score and hip range of motion (ROM). The hip ROM, the Harris score and the good rate of Harris score were compared between different groups. Comparison of the good rate of Harris score showed that 85%∼100% group of the rotation center horizontal position ratio was higher than >100% group; 80%∼120% group of the rotation center vertical position ratio was higher than >160% group; and the 90%∼110% group and 110%∼130% group of femoral offset ratio were higher than 90% and >130% groups. Comparison of Harris score showed that 85%∼100% and 70%∼85% groups of rotation center horizontal position ratio were higher than 70% and >100% groups; 80%∼120% group of rotation center vertical position ratio was the highest; and 90%∼110% group and 110%∼130% group of femoral offset ratio were higher than >130% and 90% groups. Comparison of hip ROM showed that 85%∼100% and 70%∼85% groups of the rotation center horizontal position ratio were higher than 70% and >100% groups; 80%∼120% group of the rotation center vertical position ratio was the highest; and hip ROM from high to low are 90%∼110%, 110%∼130%, >130% and 90% groups of femoral offset ratio. These findings indicated that during the early follow-up period of THA, if the horizontal position of femoral head rotation center was reconstructed in 0.85 to 1 times of healthy side when compared with reconstruction >1 times of the healthy side and if the vertical position of femoral head rotation center was reconstructed in 0.8 to 1.2 times of the healthy side when compared with reconstruction in >1.6 times of the healthy side, better hip function recovery and optimal hip ROM were obtained. The optimal reconstruction range of femoral offset is 0.9 to 1.3 times of the healthy side.