Early surgical complications of total hip arthroplasty related to surgical approach

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.

A Multi-factor Analysis of Revision in Total Hip Replacement Using the Collarless-Polished-Tapered Stems with Different Cups

OBJECTIVE

Collarless-polished-tapered (CPT) stems have been widely used in total hip replacement (THR). Given that various types of cups are combined with CPT in clinical practice, however, what cup type performs the best for use with CPT is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of three types of commonly used cups with CPT on revision and survival life using multi-factor analysis.

METHODS

This study is a cohort study using the data between October 1998 to September 2021. The data of THR patients with ZCA All-poly Acetabular Cup, Continuum Acetabular System, and Trilogy Acetabular System with CPT were collected from several hospitals in the UK. The patients aged from 20 to 97 (n = 5981, 2345 male and 3636 female). Age, gender, body mass index, diagnosis, surgeon grade, cup material, cup size, surgical approach, survival life, complications, and Harris hip scores (HHS) were analyzed in relation to revision status. SPSS statistical software was used to analyze the relationship among various factors. The main statistical methods included chi-square with cross tables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and survival analysis.

RESULTS

The results in relation to HHS shows that the continuum cup has the best outcome in the postoperative period of 1 and 5 years (1 year = 90.7, 5 years = 91.3; P < 0.001); the Trilogy cup was the second (1 year = 88.4, 5 years = 87.3; P < 0.001); and the ZCA cup was the third (1 year = 84.6, 5 years = 82.4; P < 0.001). However, the Trilogy cup performed the best regarding survival life on revision while the Continuum cup was the worst.

CONCLUSION

When the CPT stem is combined with different cups, the trilogy cup shows the best characteristics in terms of survival trends with revision ratios compared with the continuum and ZCA cups, and is therefore recommended by this study.

Morselized bone autograft for high placement of acetabular component closure with hip arthroplasty revision after 3-years screws and cup loosening: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Aseptic loosening in high placement of the acetabular component seriously affects the hip and femoral head loads. Surgery revision is highly recommended with defect closure in previous place.

CASE PRESENTATION

A-40-year-old man came with chief complaint of right groin pain and noticeable leg length discrepancy gait. The first hip arthroplasty through pseudo-acetabulum cup was done three years ago after neglected femoral head necrosis due to eight years of unknown hip dislocation in vehicle accident. On hip x-ray there is a screws and cup loosening, without any sign of infection from blood or from soft tissue which undergoes pathological and mold examination. The patient than assessed with periprosthetic aseptic loosening of hip dextra and simple total hip arthroplasty revision using true acetabulum location was done. The pseudo-acetabulum area closed with morselized bone autograft. One weeks after surgery, the wound healed properly. Hence, the patient sent to the rehabilitation.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Hip arthroplasty revision of aseptic loosening in high placement acetabular component should perform by returning to anatomical acetabular position. Cancellous morselized bone autograft (MBA) was used to closed the defect formed by previous procedure.

CONCLUSION

Revision of hip arthroplasty combined with morselized bone autograft can be considered for high placement acetabular component defect closure to provide better stability and strength in weight loads transfer.

The length of distal skin incision of the postero-lateral approach affects the cup inclination during the total hip arthroplasty

Aim: The primary aim of the study was to determine whether the length of the distal skin incision of the posterolateral approach affects the cup inclination during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Material and Method: In this study, a cohort of 71 consecutive patients who performed between January 2017 and December 2021 with unilateral THA using a posterolateral approach was retrospectively assessed. Two groups were formed according to acetabular cup inclination with normal anteversion angle. There were 56 hips in the inside group and 17 in the outside group. A curvilinear skin incision of around 13 cm was performed. Component position evaluation was carried out through a radiographic assessment of the acetabular component on an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph. The rate of an outlier was compared between groups according to the safe zone defined as 30° to 50° of inclination and 5° to 25° of anteversion, which was described by Lewinnek et al. Results: No significant difference in the average total incision length was found between the two groups (p=0.207). While the average distal incision length was 7.91±0.62 cm (range, 6.8-9 cm) in the inside group and 6.37±0.21 cm (range, 6-6.7 cm) in the outside group. According to ROC analysis, a patient with ≤6.7 cm of the distal length of incision (DLI) was 5.71 times more likely to be outside than a patient with >6.7 cm of DLI. Seventeen hips (23.3%) were found outside the safe range. Substantial differences were observed regarding radiographic cup inclination between the two groups (p=0.0001). In the inside group, the average cup inclination was 44.11°±3.44° (range, 37°-50°), whereas, in the outside group, it was 55.41°±2.5° (range, 52°-59°). However, there were no significant differences in the average radiographic cup anteversion between the two groups (p=0.960). Although 11 of 17 (64.5%) patients were classified as obese (BMI ≥30) in the outside group experienced higher rates of inaccurate cup orientation, logistic regression analysis showed that the individual effects of obesity on the occurrence of the inaccurate cup position were not observed (p=0.884). One posterior hip dislocation occurred after one month postoperative in the outside group. Conclusions: Longer distal portion of the skin incision of the posterolateral approach should be performed to achieve optimal operative inclination angles of the acetabular cup during THA. The surgeon must have no hesitation in extending the distal skin incision when adopting the posterolateral approach.

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.

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of the Most Commonly Utilized Cementless Stems

BACKGROUND

Compared with other total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, the anterior approach has an increased rate of revision for femoral-sided complications, and certain stems may increase this risk. The present study aimed to assess the outcome of THA by surgical approach, according to the femoral stem utilized in the procedure.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis via the anterior or posterior approach with use of 1 of 5 of the most common cementless femoral stems from January 2015 to December 2019. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and for femoral stem loosening and fracture. The CPR was compared between THAs performed via the anterior and posterior approaches for all stems and for each individual femoral stem, as well as between individual femoral stems for each approach.

RESULTS

The study included 48,716 THAs performed with use of cementless stems, of which 22,840 utilized an anterior approach and 25,876 utilized a posterior approach. There was no difference in the all-cause CPR between the anterior and the posterior approach, but the anterior approach had a higher CPR for loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.69; p < 0.001) and fracture (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.35; p < 0.001). There was apparent variation in the CPR across the different cementless stems when an anterior approach was utilized. The Quadra-H (Medacta) had a higher all-cause CPR when compared with the Polarstem (Smith & Nephew; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.91; p = 0.002) and Corail (DePuy Synthes; HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.0478). Variation was less apparent with the posterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

THAs performed via the anterior approach had higher rates of revision for femoral stem loosening and fracture, with greater variation in outcomes between individual stems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Is Surgical Approach for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Associated With Timing, Incidence, and Characteristics of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femur fractures (PFF) involving primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remain a significant concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surgical approach during primary THA on early PFF with respect to fracture timing, incidence, radiographic parameters, and surgery-related factors.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with PFF during or after primary THA from 2011 to 2019 was conducted at a single, urban academic institution. Of the study cohort of 11,915 patients, 79 patients with PFF were identified (0.66%). Direct anterior (DA), posterior anterior (PA), and laterally based (LA) cohorts were formed based on the surgical approach. PA and LA groups were combined to form a nonanterior (NA) cohort. Radiographic parameters, surgical factors, and fracture mechanism were analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of fracture across approaches was 0.70% (33/4707; DA), 0.63% (35/5600; PA), and 0.68% (11/1608; LA) (P = .97). Time from THA to fracture was significantly shorter in the DA cohort (12.5 ± 14.1 days) than the NA cohort (48.2 ± 120.6 days) (P = .05). Postoperatively identified, atraumatic PFFs were more common in the DA cohort (78.3%, 18/23) than the NA cohort (51.6%, 16/31) (P = .045). There were no differences between groups in radiographic or other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent DA THA have significantly shorter time to PFF and were more often identified postoperatively with an atraumatic mechanism than patients who underwent NA approaches. The known difficulty in femoral exposure and stem placement with the DA approach may play a role in contributing to a higher rate of intraoperative or early postoperative PFF.

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.

Dual Mobility and Conventional Bearings Have Comparably Low Dislocation Rates for Anterior-Based Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in select patients, especially those undergoing revision surgery. The use of DM bearings has not been studied as extensively for use in primary THA. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following primary THA with anterior-based approaches between patients receiving DM bearings vs standard bearing hip implants.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary THA through an anterior-based approach. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between the standard and DM bearing patients to control for possible risk factors for instability. Functional outcomes, dislocations, and aseptic revisions were identified for each patient. The effect of DM on postoperative outcomes was determined using univariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 250 DM bearings were compared to 753 standard bearings. We found no difference in dislocation rate between single bearings and DM bearings (0.53% vs 0.4%). There was 1 DM dislocation occurring in a liner with outer diameter of 38 mm. There were no DM dislocations with outer diameter >38 mm. Aseptic revision surgery was more common in DM. This difference was driven by higher incidence of femoral periprosthetic fracture. There were no differences in functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Dislocation rates are comparably low between DM bearings and standard bearings for THA done using an anterior approach to the hip. Further investigation is needed to determine if specific patient populations may benefit from DM implants for primary THA when an anterior approach to the hip is being used.

Direct Anterior Approach in Lateral Decubitus Position Versus Supine Position for Unilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of the direct anterior approach in lateral decubitus position (L-DAA) and supine position (S-DAA) for unilateral total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 89 patients who underwent primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty in our department between August 2016 and December 2017. There were 46 patients who underwent L-DAA and 43 patients who underwent S-DAA. The body mass index (BMI), operation time, blood loss, preoperative Hb, first day and third day postoperative Hb, incision length, hospital stay, preoperative and postoperative Harris score, preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, radiological evaluation, intraoperative and postoperative complication, postoperative absolute length difference of lower extremity were recorded and analyzed. P < 0.05 was set as the significant difference.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up for 8-23 months, with an average of 15.6 months. No significant differences were found in preoperative and postoperative Harris scores, preoperative Hb, incision lengths, radiological evaluations, preoperative and postoperative VAS scores, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were detected in BMI, blood loss, first day and third day postoperative Hb, and operation time (P < 0.05). There were no postoperative complications in the L-DAA and S-DAA groups. During the operation, two cases of proximal femoral fracture occurred in the L-DAA group, four in the S-DAA group, and the difference was statistically significant. There were significant differences found in the postoperative absolute length difference of lower extremity between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the S-DAA approach, the L-DAA approach had the advantages of shorter operation time and less blood loss. Compared with S-DAA, it was easier to expose the proximal femur, and lower BMI was required in L-DAA. However, it was more difficult to compare the length of both lower extremities in the L-DAA approach than in the S-DAA approach.