Modular sleeves with ceramic heads in isolated acetabular cup revision in younger patients-laboratory and experimental analysis of suitability and clinical outcomes

Usefulness of modular neck adapter in partial hip revision

Background and Objective

Modular neck adapters allow different length and offset changes to reach a stable total hip arthroplasty (THA) and permit a quick partial hip revision procedure without removing the existing components. The literature is poor on this matter and about the long-term related outcomes. This narrative review summarizes the most recent literature about these devices as an option of surgical treatment in partial total hip arthroplasty revision (THAr) focusing on indications, clinical and radiological outcomes, and related complications.

Methods

The narrative review of the current available literature was conducted in December 2022 through electronic database. The terms used were: "Head neck taper" OR "Merete BioBall" AND "revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (MeSH Terms)". The timeframe was limited between 01/01/2000 and 01/12/2022. The studies regarding the clinical use of the Merete BioBall® system in hip revision surgery were included, while all the papers concerning modular stem prosthesis were excluded.

Key Content and Findings

The surgical procedure is safe, quick and allows the surgeon to correct a well-fixed stem version, length and offset, besides retensioning soft tissues. Clinical and radiological outcomes are good with low complications rates.

Conclusions

The modular neck adapter system seems to be a good surgical procedure for recurrent dislocation of THA, especially in case of a second THAr surgery. However, the main indication of adapter use remains the isolated acetabular cup revision. The related complications are rare: the worst is the re-dislocation due to an insufficient stem version and length correction. Re-dislocation rates reported in literature vary from 5.2% to 15%. Corrosion or fretting of the modular system are not reported in literature.

Surface Analysis of Ti-Alloy Micro-Grooved 12/14 Tapers Assembled to Non-Sleeved and Sleeved Ceramic Heads: A Comparative Study of Retrieved Hip Prostheses

Ti6Al4V titanium alloy (Ti-alloy) sleeved ceramic heads have become widely used in revision surgery when the hip stem is left in situ. This solution guarantees a new junction between the bore of the ceramic head and the Ti-alloy sleeve, regardless of any possible, slight surface damage to the Ti-alloy taper of the stem. However, this solution introduces an additional Ti-alloy/Ti-alloy interface pairing, which is potentially susceptible to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion. This study evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively the damage that occurred in vivo on Ti-alloy micro-grooved 12/14 tapers of (i) primary implants with non-sleeved ceramic heads (Group 1), (ii) secondary implants with non-sleeved ceramic heads (Group 2), and (iii) secondary implants with sleeved ceramic heads (Group 3). A total of 45 explants-15 for each group, including short-, medium- and long-neck heads-underwent optical evaluation for surface damage (Goldberg scoring), surface roughness analysis, and SEM/EDX analysis. The Goldberg scores did not reveal different patterns in the tapers' surface damage; surface damage was classified as absent or mild (surface damage score ≤2) in 94%, another 94%, and 92% of the analysed regions for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively. Small but significant differences in morphological changes occurred in the tapers of the three groups: reductions no greater than a few percentage points in median values of roughness parameters were found in Group 1 and Group 2, while negligible changes were found in Group 3. SEM/EDX analysis revealed little (i.e., a slight increase in the oxygen content) to undetectable changes in the chemical composition on the Ti-alloy surface independently of the group. These results suggest that the Ti-alloy/Ti-alloy sleeve/taper junction is only mildly susceptible to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion. Assembling a sleeved ceramic head, with variable neck lengths up to a "long-neck", to a Ti-alloy micro-grooved 12/14 taper of a stem left in situ does not seem to increase the risk of revision due to trunnionosis, as long as junction stability (i.e., the proper seating of the sleeved ceramic head on the 12/14 taper) is achieved intraoperatively.

[Partial or full component exchange in hip revision? : The relevance of off-label use and mix & match]

Off-label use is frequently practiced in hip revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended (i.e. large bone and soft tissue defects, obesity). Patients may also benefit from selective application of mix & match in hip revision, when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced. Currently, there are no formal guidelines for these situations. Therefore, within a recent EFORT initiative, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

Catastrophic intraoperative failure of a ceramic femoral head

Approximately 17 years after a primary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty, a 59-year-old female developed pain, swelling, and weakness in her right hip accompanied by laboratory findings and imaging suggestive of an adverse local tissue reaction. Acetabular revision was performed to upsize the femoral head and improve hip stability. Upon impaction of the new, non-option ceramic femoral head onto the unsleeved retained stem, the head split into two pieces without fragmentation. The surgery was completed using a cobalt-chromium head, which was impacted without issue onto the stem’s taper. Although BIOLOX delta femoral heads do not require titanium sleeves, we believe that careful consideration should be given to their use in revision total hip arthroplasty with ceramic heads, regardless of the extent of trunnion damage noted intraoperatively.

Adapter sleeves are essential for ceramic heads in hip revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Removing a head during isolated acetabular revision surgery can cause damage to the stem taper surface from extraction tool contact. Implanting a ceramic head on the damaged stem taper might elevate the fracture risk, which can be mitigated with the use of titanium adapter sleeves. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the improved fracture strength of modern generation ceramic heads allows the direct implantation on damaged stem tapers without an adapter sleeve.

METHODS

Finite element models of taper junctions with and without adapter sleeve were generated. Different stem taper damages were modelled to investigate the influence on the ceramic head fracture load under axial compression.

FINDINGS

Heads without adapter sleeves exhibited slightly higher or equal fracture strengths compared with sleeved heads for most scenarios. However, a small metal elevation on the stem taper caused a drastic decrease of the fracture strength if no adapter sleeve was used (-96%). The sleeved head was not influenced by the metal elevation damage.

INTERPRETATION

Adapter sleeves are essential to ensure patient safety and prosthesis longevity whenever implanting ceramic heads on used stem tapers.

Impact of stem taper damage on the fracture strength of ceramic heads with adapter sleeves

BACKGROUND

Using a new ceramic head with a titanium adapter sleeve offers the possibility of maintaining a well fixed stem when conducting cup revision of a total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to test the impact of stem taper damage on the fracture strength of sleeved ceramic heads.

METHODS

Pristine zirconia-toughened alumina heads with titanium adapter sleeves (BIOLOX®OPTION System) were tested on damaged Ti-4Al-6V stem tapers in accordance with ISO7206-10. Four distinctive damage types classified as intolerable by the manufacture were investigated, representing various reductions in contact area between the stem taper and sleeve taper as well as damage incurred from previous ceramic head fracture.

FINDINGS

The largest reduction in fracture strength occurred for a loss of contact for the entire length of the stem taper. Nonetheless, the fracture strength in all investigated cases was several times higher than that defined by the FDA standards.

INTERPRETATION

The use of a titanium sleeve recreates a uniform contact situation between the ceramic head and the outer sleeve taper in situations of damaged stem tapers. For the investigated damage types a high fracture strength of the ceramic head was maintained. This study supports the clinical use for sleeved ceramic heads in instances of greater damages of stem tapers than previously defined in order to spare patients from stem removal.

The Merete BioBall system in hip revision surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Modular hip arthroplasty is widely recognized in hip surgery; nevertheless, despite advances in prosthetic design, the incidence of hip revision surgery is increasing. In these procedures, a modular adapter that engages the femoral stem and the modular femoral head could be useful in order to protect the neck-head junction and restore preoperative biomechanics and soft tissue tension when the femoral or acetabular component should be retained. The Merete™ BioBall™ system (Merete Medical, Berlin, Germany) could fill this need. However the literature regarding this device is sparse, therefore we performed a systematic review to analyze: the indications for its use and clinical results and the causes of second revision and survival in hip revision surgery, mainly focus in complications of its use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases including PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for English-language articles published between 01/01/1999 and 01/04/2017, using search terms related to the system Merete™ BioBall™. Studies that reported the clinical use of the Merete™ BioBall™ system in hip revision surgery were selected. Data related to the indications, characteristics of the implant, clinical results, causes of second revision and survival were gathered.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies with a level IV evidence were analyzed. Information related to the implant was provided in 194 cases. Isolated acetabular revision was the main indication of implant use (139/194 [71.6%]). The most common combination used was the standard implant (69/110 specified [59.4%]), 3XL length (28/107 specified [26.2%]) with 32mm metal head (58/187 specified [31%]). After a follow-up ranging from 2 to 97 months, there were 16 complications, thirteen (81,2%) were revised, including one neck fracture of the stem (6.25%), two ceramic head fractures (12,5%) and six recurrent dislocations (37,5%). Implant survival was 92.8% at 52.5 months of follow-up in the longest published series. Clinical and functional results were provided in a heterogeneous way.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or contraindicate the use of the Merete™ BioBall™ system. The Isolated acetabular revision was the main indication of implant use. When dislocation is the indication of its use the rate of second revision is high. Some important complications possibly related with the implant design have been reported but as isolated cases. The neck adapter failure or corrosion phenomena have not been reported. Further prospective and controlled trials are needed to assess the use of this type of implant and its survival.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III systematic review of case series.

Revision of ceramic fracture with ceramic-on-polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: Medium-term results

There is no consensus on the bearing of choice in revision for ceramic fracture after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes using ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) articulation in revision for ceramic breakage. Twelve patients who underwent revision hip surgery between 2002 and 2013 were followed-up. Appropriate surgical technique, including accurate synoviectomy, was used. The cup and the head were changed in four patients and only the liner and the head were replaced in the remaining eight patients. At the final follow-up there were no cases of re-revision due to tribological reasons, and only one case of polyethylene (PE) wear and osteolysis was scheduled for a new revision because of clear cup malposition. Complications were four cases of dislocation, one case of loosening and one case of infection. Revision of fractured ceramic is a challenging situation with a high risk of early complications. Using CoP liners with accurate synoviectomy and correction of misalignment can be considered a valuable bearing option at medium-term follow-up.

Primary ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve

BACKGROUND

Modern ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have become attractive alternatives to conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a result of their low wear and minimal particle production. However, 28-mm heads in ceramic-on-ceramic bearing couples have been associated with ceramic fracture. To address these issues, 32-mm and larger ceramic heads with a titanium-alloy sleeve have been introduced, although limited data are available on their durability and clinical outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined (1) the survivorship of the primary ceramic-on-ceramic THA using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve at a minimum followup of 5 years; (2) Harris hip scores; (3) the incidence of ceramic fracture and noisy hip; and (4) the proportion of hips showing radiographic evidence of osteolysis.

METHODS

From November 2005 to August 2009, we performed 301 ceramic-on-ceramic THAs using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve in 270 patients. Of these, 12 patients (12 hips [4%]) died from problems unrelated to surgery and 13 patients (15 hips [5%]) were lost during followup before a minimum of 5 years had been reached, leaving 245 patients who had 274 THAs with a minimum followup of 5 years (mean, 6.5 years; range, 5-9 years) in this retrospective analysis. During the study period, 30% (301 of 997 hips) were performed with this articulation based on the operating surgeon's discretion. The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 55 years (range, 16-82 years). All operations were performed at a single center. All of the ceramic implants were hot isostatic-pressed, laser-marked, proof-tested third-generation alumina. We determined the implant survival, Harris hip scores, incidence of ceramic fracture or noisy hips (based on a questionnaire), and presence of osteolysis.

RESULTS

The survival rate of ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in primary THA using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve was 98% (95% confidence interval, 96%-100%) at 9 years. The Harris hip score improved from a mean of 47 points preoperatively to 93 points at last followup. One ceramic head fractured at 6 years postoperatively. No ceramic liners fractured. Audible hip clicking and squeaking were identified in four hips and one hip, respectively. Osteolysis was detected in three hips, but none had symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary ceramic-on-ceramic THA using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve has a survivorship of 98% at 9-year followup. Nevertheless, surgeons should be aware of the potential risks of ceramic fracture, noise, and osteolysis associated with the use of a ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Treatment of failures related to articulation material in THA. A comprehensive algorithm of surgical options and open questions

Total hip arthroplasty is considered one of the greatest advances in health care of the last century. More than one million THAs are estimated to be performed annually and an increasing number of revisions are expected in the future. Osteolysis and loosening are still the main reasons for failure, justifying the use of low-wear bearings.The aim of this paper is to describe the mode of failure of the different couplings (polyethylene, cross-linked PE, metal, ceramic) and the options of treatment considering the various scenarios that the surgeon has to face nowadays in the case of failure related to articulation material. A comprehensive algorithm of treatment strategies is proposed based on the best current evidence and on the authors' experience.Periodical follow-up, indications for early revision, selection of proper surgical techniques and tribology are suggested. Nowadays, few rules are strongly recommended: trying to avoid any metal in case of failure of metal-on-metal; to avoid metal in fracture of ceramic; never to mix metals or ceramics from different manufactures. We aim to address a great number of open questions. There is still need for further research and evidences in this essential field of orthopaedic surgery.

Cementless dual-mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision

PURPOSE

Dislocation is a frequent complication in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision. Cup fixation is the second concern. In order to know outcomes at two years, we prospectively followed a continuous series of 78 patients to demonstrate that cementless dual-mobility cup (DMC) used in revision THA is safe as regards dislocation risk and bone fixation.

METHOD

We enrolled 78 consecutive patients (79 cases) in a prospective study. Mean interval between index surgery and revision was 12.9 years. Mean age at revision was 75.5 years. Two types of cementless DMC were used: a standard DMC in 68 cases with low-grade bone defect (Paprosky grade 1 and 2), and a specific design reconstruction DMC in 11 cases with severe bone loss (Paprosky grade 3).

RESULTS

At two years of follow-up, 68 patients were reviewed; four were lost to follow-up., and six patients were deceased. We identified three types of situations at risk:standard risk (33 cases), Paprosky grade 1 or 2; medium risk (37 cases), revision for recurrent instability (21), periprosthetic fractures (14) or severe loosening Paprosky grade 3 without femorotomy (2); high risk (nine cases), revision for severe loosening with a femorotomy. One (1.3%) patient dislocated her hip at one month without recurrence. Revision rate for dislocation was 0%; two (2.7%) early mechanical failures occurred.

CONCLUSION

Considering outcomes of this series, cementless DMC can be suggested in THA revision surgery.