Resection of the proximal femur during one-stage revision for infected hip arthroplasty : risk factors and effectiveness

AIMS

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions.

METHODS

In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years' time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions.

CONCLUSION

Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678-1685.

Techniques and outcomes of hip abductor reconstruction following tumor resection in adults

The function of the abductor mechanism (AM) of the hip can be disturbed, or even compromised, following tumor resection in the hip area. The consequences are instability (limping, dislocation), pain and altered walking ability. Several reconstruction techniques can be used for the same AM sacrifice. After defining the AM, this lecture will discuss the best technique for a given type of bone and muscle resection. These reconstruction techniques depend on exactly where the AM was sacrificed. For zone 1 resections of the ilium and/or iliac gluteal insertions, reconstruction is often optional. When muscle from the AM is resected, especially when the gluteal tendon is detached from its trochanteric insertion, isolated reconstruction can be done or reconstruction in combination with a tendon allograft or an allograft and/or tendon transfer from the surrounding area. This sacrifice, whether followed by reconstruction or not, in most cases leads to a good functional outcome, except when a complete musculotendinous unit or the superior gluteal nerve is sacrificed. Isolated resection of the greater trochanter is rare; however, this completely disrupts the continuity of the AM and justifies reconstruction, often using a bone-tendon allograft. Proximal femur resection is the most common scenario. The extent of the trochanteric resection and the gluteal tendon attachments drives the type of prosthesis used. The two most used techniques consist in an allograft sleeve over a long cemented femoral stem (allograft prosthesis composite - APC) or a modular proximal femoral endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis) with a specific AM fixation system (small plate or wire cerclage, resorbable or metal wire, synthetic reattachment tube). These two techniques yield nearly identical long-term functional outcomes with complications specific to each: osteolysis and fracture for APC, failure of tendon reattachment for megaprosthesis. Beyond these technical considerations, one must consider the poor availability of massive bone allografts. This is a highly relevant issue in France, and partially explains the shift to reconstruction with a megaprosthesis. Lastly, we will look at the different clinical and diagnostic tests used to evaluate the function of the AM in an oncology context and the outcomes of the various types of reconstruction.