The use of a standard-length conical tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty to address Paprosky type I-II femoral defects: a prospective study of 87 patients

INTRODUCTION

Low-grade femoral defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) might be preferably treated with a primary implant. Almost no previous study reported the use of standard-length conical tapered (SLCT) stems in these cases. We analyzed a series of cases using a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects. The purpose of the study was to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes in this series of rTHA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively followed 87 patients undergoing a femoral component rTHA: 53 Paprosky type I and 34 type II femoral defects. Patient-reported measures (Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, VAS pain during rest and activity) were administered at baseline, 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Radiographic subsidence overtime was scored. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the subsidence over time, the complication-free survival, and the implant survivorship with reoperation and stem revision as endpoints.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 72.5 (SD ± 23.9) months. All PROMs significatively improved over time. The average subsidence was 2.8 (SD ± 3.2), 3.6 (SD ± 4.4), and 4.0 (SD ± 4.9) mm at 4, 12, and 24 months respectively. 6 stems had subsidence > 10 mm. The survival without complication was 0.85 (95% CI 0.94-0.77), while the implant survival without reoperation was 0.83 (95% CI 0.95-0.72). The overall stem survival rate was 93.7% (95% CI 0.91-0.97) at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The use of a SLCT stem in rTHA with Paprosky type I-II femoral defects demonstrated good survival with low subsidence rates during the first 2 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider the use of this primary prosthesis as a potential treatment during stem revision in cases with limited femoral bone loss.

Short- to Midterm Outcomes of a Novel Guided-Motion Rotational Hinged Total Knee Arthroplasty

Hinged prostheses have been increasingly utilized in complex and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases requiring additional mechanical support and global stability. However, there is limited data detailing the outcomes of modern hinge designs in these procedures. The aim of this study is to report a minimum 2-year functional outcomes and survivorship of a novel-guided motion-hinged knee TKA system. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive TKA patients between March 2013 and August 2017 with a novel-guided motion-hinged knee system. Demographics, change in range of motion (ΔROM), quality metrics, and implant survivorship were collected with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Implant survival was analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall, 147 hinged knee cases (18 complex primaries and 129 revisions) were identified with an average follow-up duration of 3.8 ± 1.2 years. Patients presented with an average of 2.4 ± 1.6 prior knee surgeries, and 51 (34.7%) had a history of knee infections. The ROM improved postoperatively: Δ extension = 2 ± 1 degrees, Δflexion = 7 ± 3 degrees, Δtotal ROM = 9 ± 4 degrees. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis for implant revision at 2- and 5-year follow-up showed a survival rate of 100 and 98.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.3-99.6%), respectively, with one patient undergoing two-stage revision for infection and another undergoing femoral revision for aseptic loosening. Survivorship for aseptic all-cause reoperation at 2- and 5-year follow-up was 93.2% (87.7-96.3%) and 88.2% (80.0-93.2%), respectively. Fourteen patients underwent aseptic reoperation (patellar complications: n = 7 [4.8%]; instability: n = 5 [3.4%]; tuberosity fixation: n = 1 [0.7%]; extensor mechanism failure: n = 1 [1.1%]). Survivorship for all-cause reoperation at 2- and 5-year follow-up were 85% (78.2-90.0%) and 77.7% (68.8-84.3%), respectively. Fifteen patients underwent reoperation for infection (DAIR: n = 14 (9.5%); two-stage revision: n = 1 [0.7%]). Despite some reoperations, this guided-motion hinged-knee TKA system demonstrates excellent survivorship for component revision compared to other modern hinged knee implants reported in the literature. Patients also displayed an improvement in knee ROM at their latest follow-up.

Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Aseptic loosening and infection are 2 of the most common causes of revision of hip implants. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces not only the rate of revision due to infection but also the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. This suggests under-diagnosis of infections in patients with presumed aseptic loosening and indicates that current diagnostic tools are suboptimal. In a previous multicenter study on 176 patients undergoing revision of a total hip arthroplasty due to presumed aseptic loosening, optimized diagnostics revealed that 4-13% of the patients had a low-grade infection. These infections were not treated as such, and in the current follow-up study the effect on mid- to long-term implant survival was investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were sent a 2-part questionnaire. Part A requested information about possible re-revisions of their total hip arthroplasty. Part B consisted of 3 patient-related outcome measure questionnaires (EQ5D, Oxford hip score, and visual analog scale for pain). Additional information was retrieved from the medical records. The group of patients found to have a low-grade infection was compared to those with aseptic loosening.

RESULTS

173 of 176 patients from the original study were included. In the follow-up time between the revision surgery and the current study (mean 7.5 years), 31 patients had died. No statistically significant difference in the number of re-revisions was found between the infection group (2 out of 21) and the aseptic loosening group (13 out of 152); nor was there any significant difference in the time to re-revision. Quality of life, function, and pain were similar between the groups, but only 99 (57%) of the patients returned part B.

INTERPRETATION

Under-diagnosis of low-grade infection in conjunction with presumed aseptic revision of total hip arthroplasty may not affect implant survival.