Acetabular complications are the most common cause for revision surgery following proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement : what is the best bearing option in the primary and revision setting?

Similar complications, implant survival, and function following modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur for primary bone tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections.

METHODS

We performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases.

RESULTS

We analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5 years, 75 to 86% at 10 years, and 82% at 15 years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5 years and 86% at 10 years, and 86% at 15 years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Modular dual-mobility articulations in patients with adverse spinopelvic mobility

AIMS

Adverse spinal motion or balance (spine mobility) and adverse pelvic mobility, in combination, are often referred to as adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM). A stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt, and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Adverse SPM can create functional malposition of the acetabular components and hence is an instability risk. Adverse pelvic mobility is often, but not always, associated with abnormal spinal motion parameters. Dislocation rates for dual-mobility articulations (DMAs) have been reported to be between 0% and 1.1%. The aim of this study was to determine the early survivorship from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) of patients with adverse SPM who received a DMA.

METHODS

A multicentre study was performed using data from 227 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), enrolled consecutively. All the patients who had one or more adverse spine or pelvic mobility parameter had a DMA inserted at the time of their surgery. The mean age was 76 years (22 to 93) and 63% were female (n = 145). At a mean of 14 months (5 to 31) postoperatively, the AOANJRR was analyzed for follow-up information. Reasons for revision and types of revision were identified.

RESULTS

The AOANJRR reported two revisions: one due to infection, and the second due to femoral component loosening. No revisions for dislocation were reported. One patient died with the prosthesis in situ. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 99.1% (95% confidence interval 98.3 to 100) at 14 months (number at risk 104).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients undergoing primary THA with one or more factor associated with adverse SPM, DM bearings conferred stability at two years' follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):820-825.

Survival of the GAP II cage in the management of metastatic disease of the acetabulum

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of an antiprotrusio acetabular cage (APC) when used in the surgical treatment of periacetabular bone metastases.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study using a prospectively collected database involved 56 patients who underwent acetabular reconstruction for periacetabular bone metastases or haematological malignancy using a single APC between January 2009 and 2020. The mean follow-up was 20 months (1 to 143). The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Postoperative radiographs were analyzed for loosening and failure. Patient and implant survival were assessed using a competing risk analysis. Secondary parameters included primary malignancy, oncological treatment, surgical factors, length of stay in hospital, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients (59%) died during the study period at a mean of 15 months postoperatively (1 to 63). No patient had radiological evidence of loosening or failure. Acetabular component survival was 100%. Three patients (5.4%) had further surgery; one (1.8%) underwent revision of the femoral component for dislocation, one required debridement with implant retention for periprosthetic joint infection, and one required closed reduction for dislocation. Using death as a competing risk, at 100 months, the probability of revision was 0.036 and the risk of death was 0.84.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate patient selection, the antiprotrusio cage offers good implant survival, with a reasonable perioperative complication rate in this high-risk group of patients when managing metastatic disease or haematological malignancy around the acetabulum. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):504-509.

Implant Survival, Clinical Outcome and Complications of Megaprosthetic Reconstructions Following Sarcoma Resection

Simple Summary

Malignant bone and soft tissue tumors are usually surgically removed with an envelope of healthy tissue as a barrier. If located in the long bones of the upper and lower extremity, this approach leads to a large bone defect commonly affecting a joint. One way to rebuild the bone defect and the neighboring joint is the use of a megaprosthesis that is anchored in the remaining bone comparable to a conventional joint replacement. In general this approach is popular as it provides early stability and allows the affected patient to begin rehabilitation early on. However, complications leading to long-term unplanned reoperation are common. This article provides an overview of current implant survival, types of complication and long-term outcomes of megaprostheses used following tumor resection.

Abstract

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.