Risk factors for periacetabular osteolysis and wear in asymptomatic patients with uncemented total hip arthroplasties

Polyethylene liner cementation into a well-fixed metal acetabular shell for the management of periacetabular osteolysis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Although various papers have reported on the clinical performance of cup retention with cementation of a new liner and bone grafting in the management of well-fixed cups with polyethylene wear and periacetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA), no systematic review of this topic has been published to date.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from January 1999 to January 2019 using "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed", "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular", "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup", and "cemented liner" AND "well-fixed".

RESULTS

Nine articles were selected for review (186 cases, 76.1 months mean follow-up). The overall revision rate was 11.3% (21 hips) most commonly due to aseptic loosening (9/186 hips), dislocation (8/186 hips), and liner wear progression (2/186 cases). The reported square size of osteolytic lesions ranged from a mean of 465.84 mm² to a max of 4,770 mm². Almost all reported lesions treated with bone grafts resolved or did not progress 97% (72/74). All studies indicated improved pain and functional scores at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Cementation of a new liner with periacetabular bone grafting provides an alternative option to isolated liner exchange and cup revision for the management of periacetabular osteolysis in well-fixed cups with a disrupted locking mechanism or unavailable exchange liner. Further higher quality studies are required in order to examine if the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene, highly porous-coated cups, hydroxyapatite-coated cups, and small-diameter cups influence the clinical outcome of liner cementation in well-fixed cups with periacetabular osteolysis.

Outcome and Risk Factors Associated with Failures of Isolated Bearing Exchange for Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

It is often challenging to decide whether to revise only the bearing or femoral acetabular component in the setting of progressive osteolysis without component loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we aimed to (1) compare the survivorship of isolated bearing exchange and single/both component revision for patients with periprosthetic osteolysis without component loosening, and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with failures of isolated bearing exchange.

METHODS

A total of 228 consecutive cases of revision THA for progressive osteolysis without component loosening was evaluated in 2 groups: (1) 124 component revision and (2) 104 isolated bearing exchange. The primary outcome was survival, with failure defined as repeat revision or reoperation for any reason. Patient risk factors, such as demographics and medical comorbidities, were also analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in survivorship between the component revision group and the bearing exchange group at 10 years (85% vs 82%; P = .89). There was no progression of osteolysis on radiographs at last follow-up for patients with isolated bearing change. Univariate regression modeling demonstrated that renal disease was associated with failure of isolated bearing exchange after revision THA.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that isolated bearing exchange is associated with similar outcomes compared with component revision for aseptic osteolysis without loosening, demonstrating that isolated bearing exchange is a viable option for selected patients with osteolysis in the setting of well-fixed THA components. This provides clinically useful information for surgeons in the surgical treatment of THA patients with wear and osteolysis without component loosening.

Triaging Total Hip Arthroplasty During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the available literature to determine what may be considered urgent indications for total hip arthroplasty, in the unprecedented setting of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.

Recent Findings

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus currently presenting in the form of a global pandemic, referred to as COVID-19. In this setting, multiple states have issued executive orders prohibiting “elective” surgery, including arthroplasty, in order to preserve healthcare resources. However, during this unprecedented reduction in elective surgery, there is likely to be some controversy as to what constitutes a purely “elective” procedure, versus an “urgent” procedure, particularly regarding hip arthroplasty. We reviewed the available literature for articles discussing the most commonly encountered indications for primary, conversion, and revision hip arthroplasty. Based upon the indications discussed in these articles, we further stratified these indications into “elective” versus “urgent” categories.

Summary

In patients presenting with hip arthroplasty indications, the decision to proceed urgently with surgery should be based upon (a) the potential harm incurred by the patient if the surgery was delayed and (b) the potential risk incurred by the patient in the context of COVID-19 if surgery was performed. The authors present a decision-making algorithm for determining surgical urgency in three patients who underwent surgery in this context. Urgent total hip arthroplasty in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic is a complex decision-making process, involving clinical and epidemiological factors. These decisions are best made in coordination with a multidisciplinary committee of one’s peers. Region-specific issues such as hospital resources and availability of PPE may also inform the decision-making process.

Prosthetic liner wear in total hip replacement: a longitudinal 13-year study with computed tomography

This case report follows a woman who had a total hip replacement in 1992 when she was 45 years old. Six serial computed tomography (CT) examinations over a period of 13 years provided information that allowed her revision surgery to be limited to liner replacement as opposed to replacement of the entire prosthesis. Additionally, they provided data that ruled out the presence of osteolysis and indeed none was found at surgery. In 2004, when the first CT was performed, the 3D distance the femoral head had penetrated into the cup was determined to be 2.6 mm. By 2017, femoral head penetration had progressed to 5.0 mm. The extracted liner showed wear at the thinnest part to be 5.5 mm, as measured with a micrometer. The use of modern CT techniques can identify problems, while still correctable without major surgery. Furthermore, the ability of CT to assess the direction of wear revealed that the liner wear changed from the cranial to dorsal direction.

Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old

Background and purpose - Total hip replacement (THR) is not recommended for children and very young teenagers because early and repetitive revisions are likely. We investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of THR performed in children and teenage patients. Patients and methods - We included 111 patients (132 hips) who underwent THR before 20 years of age. They were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, together with information on the primary diagnosis, types of implants, and any revisions that required implant change. Radiographs and Harris hip score (HHS) were also evaluated. Results - The mean age at primary THR was 17 (11-19) years and the mean follow-up time was 14 (3-26) years. The 10-year survival rate after primary THR (with the endpoint being any revision) was 70%. 39 patients had at least 1 revision and 16 patients had 2 or more revisions. In the latest radiographs, osteolysis and atrophy were observed in 19% and 27% of the acetabulae and 21% and 62% of the femurs, respectively. The mean HHS at the final follow-up was 83 (15-100). Interpretation - The clinical score after THR in these young patients was acceptable, but many revisions had been performed. However, young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip had lower implant survival. Moreover, the bone stock in these patients was poor, which could complicate future revisions.