Comparison of Total Hip Arthroplasty after Two Types of Failed Hip Preserving Procedures with Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Influence of less invasive hip preservation surgery on subsequent hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) following less invasive hip-preserving procedures (LIHPs) and present a critical overview of the literature to aid in better result interpretation. The search time was from the establishment of the database to September 2021, and the outcome indicators were extracted and analyzed by Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4). Finally, 10 articles were included in this meta-analysis by searching Chinese databases and English databases. Three of them were published in Chinese, and the remaining studies were published in English. LIHP was further divided into the tantalum rod implantation group and the non-tantalum rod implantation group. The results showed that prior tantalum rod implantation increased the difficulty of conversion to THA, which was reflected mainly in the longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 24.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.09–34.91, P < 0.00001] and greater intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 114.74, 95% CI = 33.52–195.96, P = 0.006), while no significant difference was found between the non-tantalum rod implantation group and the control group. Simultaneously, easier intraoperative fracture [odds ratio (OR) = 5.88, 95% CI = 0.93–37.05, P = 0.06] and stem malalignment (OR = 4.17, 95% CI = 1.18–14.71, P = 0.03) in the LIHP group tended to be observed than in the control THA group. However, there was no significant difference in cup anteversion and inclination angle, ectopic ossification, postoperative Harris Hip Score and survivorship between the LIHP group and the control group. Although LIHP increased the difficulty of the conversion to THA, it does not detrimentally affect the clinical results of subsequent THA in the mid-term follow-up.

Risk Factors for Intraoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Patients with Hip Dysplasia Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty with Uncemented Prostheses

OBJECTIVES

To determine the potential risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. Patients who were diagnosed with DDH and undergoing THA (by artificial joint replacement) at our hospital from January 1999 to December 2019 were included in this study. Clinical and radiological factors were obtained from their medical records, such as age, sex, Crowe classification, morphological features of proximal femur, and features of surgical procedure. The outcome of interest was the occurrence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture, which was recorded and classified according to the Vancouver classification system. According to the fracture status, the patients were divided into two groups: the fracture group and the non-fracture group. Multivariate logistic regression model was built to identify the risk factors for these fractures.

RESULTS

A total of 1252 hips were finally included. Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified in 62 hips. The incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%. There were 22 patients (proportion = 35.48%, incidence = 1.76%) with Type A fractures, 38 (proportion = 61.29%, incidence = 3.04%) with Type B fractures, and two (proportion = 3.23%, incidence = 0.16%) with Type C fractures. Six independent risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified: osteoporosis (OR = 3.434; 95% CI, 1.963-6.007), previous surgical history (OR = 4.797; 95% CI, 2.446-9.410), Dorr Type A canal (OR = 3.025; 95% CI, 1.594-5.738), retained femoral neck length (OR = 1.121; 95% CI, 1.043-1.204), implanted metaphyseal-diaphyseal fixation stems (OR = 3.208; 95% CI, 1.562-6.591), and implanted stem with anteversion design (OR = 2.916; 95% CI, 1.473-5.770).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%, which was at a moderate level compared to patients with other diseases undergoing THA. Six independent risk factors were identified: osteoporosis, previous surgical history, Dorr Type A canal, insufficient neck osteotomy level, implantation of metaphyseal-diaphyseal fixation stem, and implantation of a stem with an anteversion design. Comprehending these risk factors might help surgeons prevent the occurrence of these intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH.

[Treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head with vascularized bone grafting]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current progress of vascularized bone grafting in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), and to provide reference for treatment of ONFH.

METHODS

The literature at home and abroad on the treatment of ONFH with vascularized bone grafting was reviewed, and the mechanism, operating methods and effectiveness, indications, and complications were summarized.

RESULTS

Vascularized bone grafting is a commonly used clinical hip-preserving operation. By replacing necrotic bone tissue with vascularized bone, it can rebuild the blood circulation system, promote the healing of the necrotic area, and provide biomechanical support for the necrotic area of the femoral head, prevent the joint surface collapse. The main operations include the vascularized iliac bone flap grafting, the vascularized greater trochanter bone flap grafting, and the vascularized fibular grafting. The clinical application has achieved certain effectiveness, and the different procedures are suitable for different types of patients. The procedures need to be selected based on the patient's overall condition, the cause of ONFH, the necrosis stage, and the degree of the evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Vascularized bone grafting has a definite effectiveness in the treatment of ONFH in the young and middle-aged. It can significantly improve hip joint function, control the further development of the disease to a great extent, effectively delay or even avoid hip arthroplasty. It is a reliable hip-preserving operation worthy of promotion.