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

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 True Dislocation Incidence following Elective Total Hip Replacement in Sweden: How Does It Relate to the Revision Rate?

(1) Background: The true dislocation incidence following THA is difficult to ascertain in population-based cohorts. In this study, we explored the cumulative dislocation incidence (CDI), the relationship between the incidence of dislocation and revision surgery, patient- and surgery-related factors in patients dislocating once or multiple times, and differences between patients being revised for dislocation or not. (2) Methods: We designed an observational longitudinal cohort study linking registers. All patients with a full dataset who underwent an elective unilateral THA between 1999 and 2014 were included. The CDI and the time from the index THA to the first dislocation or to revision were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, giving cumulative dislocation and revision incidences at different time points. (3) Results: 136,810 patients undergoing elective unilateral THA were available for the analysis. The 30-day CDI was estimated at 0.9% (0.9-1.0). The revision rate for dislocation throughout the study period remained much lower. A total of 51.2% (CI 49.6-52.8) suffered a further dislocation within 1 year. Only 10.9% of the patients with a dislocation within the first year postoperatively underwent a revision for dislocation. (4) Discussion: The CDI after elective THA was expectedly considerably higher than the revision incidence. Further studies investigating differences between single and multiple dislocators and the criteria by which patients are offered revision surgery following dislocation are urgently needed.

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.