Acetabular revision using a Kerboull-type reinforcement device through direct anterior approach

A systematic review on revision total hip arthroplasty employing the direct anterior approach

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has extended to revision THA. This systematic review evaluated studies reporting both the utility and clinical outcomes of revision THA using DAA, focusing on studies comparing revision approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases identified 577 publications. 538 were excluded after abstract screening. Full-text review identified 21 studies with 1627 patients. All studies were retrospective, level IV evidence. MINORS criteria rated 14 as poor and seven as moderate. Five studies compared DAA to alternative approaches. Meta-analysis was not performed due to significant heterogeneity and lack of comparative studies.

RESULTS

The most common indications for revision were aseptic loosening (n = 929) and polyethylene wear (n = 158). The majority of the studies (n = 11/21) performed primarily acetabular revision or head-liner exchanges. Half the revisions (50.6%; n = 823/1627) included femoral revisions (35.2%; n = 573/1627) or combined femoral-acetabular revisions (15.4%; n = 250/1627). However, 80.6% (n = 462/573) of femoral revisions were from two non-comparative studies. Among the five comparative studies, two included femoral or combined revisions with significantly more performed using the posterior approach. Three of the five comparative studies did not find the DAA protective against postoperative dislocation. The overall complication rate was 14.0%; periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 106), dislocation (n = 80), and infection (n = 36) were most common. Fourteen studies reported patient-reported outcome measures, demonstrating consistent improvements following revision THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data on revision DAA THA are limited due to their retrospective nature. They demonstrate the ability to safely perform acetabular and head-liner revisions in carefully selected patients. Comparative studies lack femoral revisions, show a propensity for femoral fractures, and exhibit selection bias. Higher-quality, comparative prospective studies are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD4202236457.

The Use of Dual-Mobility Implants Through a Direct Anterior Approach as a Safe and Effective Technique for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: The Two-Year Follow-Up of a Case Series

Background Dislocation is one of the most prominent and challenging complications following the revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual-mobility cups are an option to address this problem. There is, however, little data on the outcomes of modern modular dual-mobility (MDM) cups in the revision of THA. In this study, the clinical and radiological outcomes following the revision of THA with an MDM cup using the direct anterior approach (DAA) were evaluated. Methodology We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent a revision of THA between March 2017 and July 2019. The inclusion criteria were a revision of THA using an MDM cup through the DAA. A uniform acetabular implant was used in each revision. Outcome measures were assessed radiographically and clinically. The clinical outcome measures consisted of dislocation, infection, and re-revision. Functional assessment was performed using the Harris Hip Score preoperatively and at the last clinical examination in our department. Results This study retrospectively identified a cohort of 26 patients who underwent a revision of THA. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up because they died. Finally, 24 patients were included. A total of 17 isolated acetabular revisions and seven complete revisions were performed with a mean follow-up of 39 months (range = 29-59). No dislocations or deep infections were observed in our population to date. Except for one case of early aseptic loosening of the acetabular component, we observed no other signs of loosening, osteolysis, migration, or intraprosthetic dislocation. Conclusions THA revision through the DAA using an MDM cup is a safe and effective procedure. We observed no dislocation in a high-risk population undergoing THA revision surgery during a minimal follow-up of two years.

Acetabular defect management and revision arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach

OBJECTIVE

Acetabular revision arthroplasty and osseous defect management through the direct anterior approach (DAA) with or without proximal extension.

INDICATIONS

Aseptic or septic component loosening, periacetabular osseous defects, pelvic discontinuity, intrapelvic cup protrusion, anterior pseudotumors, iliopsoas tendonitis, polyethylene wear or iliopsoas abscess.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Clinically relevant gluteal tendon lesions, active infection, morbid obesity, large abdominal pannus, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score > III, inguinal skin infection.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Electrocautery dissection is recommended to dissect the Hueter interval and to debulk pericapsular scar tissue. At all times during capsular debulking, it should be made sure not to damage the iliopsoas tendon or the neurovascular bundle. A stepwise releasing sequence can facilitate dislocation of the prosthesis. Most cases can be revised via the standard DAA but certain circumstances require an intra- or extrapelvic extension. Access to the anterior gluteal surface of the ilium can be provided using a "tensor snip". More posterior access is provided by the extensile extrapelvic approach described by Smith-Petersen. The intrapelvic Levine extension offers access to the entire visceral surface of the ilium and large parts of the anterior column.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Patient revised via the intra- or extrapelvic extension and patients suffering from extensive soft tissue or osseous defects should undergo postoperative weight-bearing restrictions with 20 kg for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Based on our studies, there is no limitation on the type of acetabular implant that can be used in DAA revision arthroplasty. Moreover, virtually all types of periacetabular osseous defects can be managed through the approach and its extensions. Acetabular revision arthroplasty via the DAA and its extensions is safe and can result in good midterm results.

Evaluation of Direct Anterior Approach for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

The direct anterior approach (DAA) is an established approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) but has been sparingly tried for revisions. The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature in order to consolidate information available on revision THA using the DAA. A PubMed, Embase, and Scopus search was performed using relevant keywords. Studies reporting on patients undergoing revision THA using DAA were included for analysis. In a review of the literature, nine studies matched the pre-decided inclusion criteria with 319 hip joints undergoing revision THA. Mean follow-up of all included studies was 34 months. The indications of revision after primary THA in decreasing order were aseptic loosening (53%), prosthetic joint infection (20.7%), peri-prosthetic fracture (16.9%), dislocation (7.2%), psoas impingement (1.9%), polyethylene wear (1.2%), pain (0.6%), and instability (0.3%). Of the 319 revisions evaluated, 107 underwent a stem revision, 142 underwent cup revision, 49 underwent a combined revision, and 21 underwent isolated liner/head change. A statistically significant improvement in functional score (P<0.05) was observed for all studies reporting on functional outcomes. A low complication rate (51/319, 16.0%), which includes dislocation (12), infection (12), loosening of the acetabular shell (5), peri-prosthetic fractures (6), haematoma (4), and transient nerve palsy (6), was reported. Based on available level III-IV evidence, DAA appears to be a reliable alternative for revision of the failed hip arthroplasty with acceptable complication rates. Evidence of a higher quality is needed to further characterize its role in revision scenarios.

The direct anterior approach: treating periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using two-stage revision arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasties can be used for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report our results following two-stage revision surgery performed through the direct anterior approach (DAA) interval using a custom-made articulating spacer.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2014, 49 patients (49 consecutive procedures) had surgery through either a DAA or extended DAA approach. Each patient received perioperative intravenous administration of antibiotics. A custom-made spacer was implanted after explanting cup and stem and following extensive debridement. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered during the immediate perioperative period and then adjusted according to the infecting organism. Complication rates and eradication rates were observed. WOMAC patient assessments were administered preoperatively and one-year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of the 49 study patients, five had a recurrence of the infection after the second-stage revision, five had a proximal periprosthetic fracture during the first stage procedure and one patient had a transient femoral nerve palsy that resolved fully within the first postoperative year. 30 different microorganisms were identified on intraoperative specimens. The average time between first and second stage procedure was 65.7 days (range 21-132 days). Eradication of infection was defined as healed wound without fistula, no drainage, no recurrence of the infection, no subsequent surgical intervention for persistent or perioperative infection after second stage revision and no long-term (> 6 months) antimicrobial suppression therapy. Eradication rate of infection in our study was 89.8%. Postoperative WOMAC scores improved significantly CONCLUSION: The preliminary clinical results for the custom-made spacer technique implanted through the DAA are promising. Therefore, we believe the DAA can be used safely as a standard operative approach for two-stage revision procedures.

Posterior versus direct anterior approach in revision hip arthroplasty using Kerboull-type plate

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate revision with a Kerboull-type plate through the posterior approach (PA) and direct anterior approach (DAA) and compare the clinical outcome.

Subjects and methods: Fifty-four patients (56 hip joints) underwent revision surgery in which acetabular reconstruction was performed concomitantly using the Kerboull-type plate and allogeneic bone. Revision surgery through DAA was performed in 21 hip joints and these were compared with 34 hip joints treated through PA. There was no significant difference in the patient demographics between the DAA and PA.

Results: There was no significant difference between the operative times in the DAA and PA groups (203.2 ± 43.5 and 211.7 ± 41.8 min). There was a significant difference between the intraoperative blood loss in the DAA and PA groups (503.9 ± 223.7 mL and 703.8 ± 329.6 mL, respectively, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the modified Harris Hip Score in the DAA and the PA groups. The loosening of the acetabular component was observed in four cases (11.8%) in the PA group. In the DAA and PA groups, the 5-year survival rates were 100 and 85.7%, respectively. Recurrent dislocation of the hip was observed in six cases (one case in the DAA group (4.8%) and five cases in the PA group (14.7%)).

Conclusions: It was verified that the difference in the surgical approach of acetabular reconstruction concomitantly using the Kerboull-type plate and allogeneic bone graft influenced the postoperative outcome.