Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty

Contemporary Isolated Bearing Exchange for the Management of Hip Instability Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Isolated ball and liner exchanges (IBLEs) can be performed to increase hip joint stability, but historical results have been mixed due to a lack of head size options or dual mobility articulations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contemporary results of IBLEs in patients who have instability following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 65 primary THAs from 2016 to 2020 with hip instability undergoing IBLE or conversion to dual mobility articulation. There were 31 men and 34 women who had an average age of 70 years (range, 26 to 92). The mean time to revision from primary was 40.1 months (range, 1 to 120). In 52 cases, IBLE was performed using conventional bearings, while 13 hips were converted to dual mobility. Radiographic factors, including acetabular component orientation, reproduction of hip joint offset, leg lengths, and outcomes such as recurrent instability requiring subsequent revision and patient-reported outcome measure, were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

There were 12 (18.4%) hips that experienced subsequent instability and required another revision (17.3% ball and liner exchange versus 23.1% dual mobility articulation, P = .615). The mean time to rerevision for instability was 17.1 months. There were no significant differences in either acetabular component anteversion (P = .25) or restoration of hip joint offset (P = .87) in patients who required another revision for instability compared to those who did not, respectively. At 1 year, patients undergoing conventional bearing exchange reported higher Hip Dysfunction Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacements (P = .002) and Veterans Rand physical component (P = .023) scores compared to those who underwent a conversion to dual mobility articulation. Only age > 75 years at the time of surgery was associated with increased risk for dislocation (odds ratio 7.2, confidence interval 1.2 to 43.7, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated bearing exchanges for instability following THA remained at high risk for subsequent instability. Conversion to dual mobility articulations did not reduce the risk of reoperation.

Prior Instability is Strongly Associated With Dislocation After Isolated Head and Liner Exchange

BACKGROUND

Isolated head and liner exchange is an appealing alternative to a more extensive revision total hip arthroplasty in patients who have well-fixed components. Despite efforts to increase femoral offset and restore soft tissue tensioning, limited component revision may be associated with higher rates of postoperative instability.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis assessed 209 patients who had a head and liner exchange conducted at a large academic medical center between 2011 and 2019 and had >2 years of follow-up. Functional cup positioning within the Lewinnek safe zone was assessed on postoperative weight-bearing radiographs. Included patients were 56% women, had a mean age of 64 years (range, 24-89) and a mean body mass index of 28.8 kg/m² (range, 18.2-46.7). The most common indications for surgery included acetabular liner wear in 86 hips (41%), instability in 40 hips (19%), and infection in 36 hips (17%).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight hips (13%) had a dislocation within 2 years after surgery. The best-fit model predicting postoperative dislocation included a history of dislocation (adjusted-odds ratio [adj-OR] 5.67, 95% CI 2.39-14.09, P < .001), age (adj-OR 1.04 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.99-1.08, P = .10), and body mass index (adj-OR 0.90 per 1-kg/m² increase, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = .046).

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients who had isolated head and liner exchange, patients who had prior instability had 7-fold elevated odds of postoperative dislocation. This risk remains significant after controlling for cup positioning outside the Lewinnek safe zone, liner type, head size, neck length, soft tissue compromise, neuromuscular disease, and dual mobility constructs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Outcome and risk factors of failures associated with revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Outcomes of isolated head-liner exchange versus full acetabular component revision in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0-8.6) years.

RESULTS

In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62-3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40-6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87-5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94-4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.

Femoral Head and Liner Exchange in Patients with Atraumatic Dislocation. Results of a Retrospective Study with 6 Years Follow-Up

Background and Objectives: Femoral head and liner exchange is an established treatment for polyethylene wear but has had a more limited role in the treatment of other conditions including dislocation, because of concerns about an increased postoperative dislocation rate. Some authors have considered dislocation associated with polyethylene wear to be a contraindication for this procedure. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective review evaluated the outcome of head and liner exchange in a small consecutively operated heterogeneous cohort of 20 patients who presented with dislocation unrelated to trauma, component malposition or component loosening. Of this group, 12 had prior primary total hip arthroplasty, and 8 had prior revision total hip arthroplasty, and included 4 patients with prior revision for dislocation. Mean follow-up was 6 ± 3.5 years (range 1–145 months). Results: Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed a revision-free implant survival from any cause of 80% (confidence interval 95%:64.3–99.6%) at 5 years after head and liner exchange (index surgery). At final follow-up, 83.3% of patients (n = 10) with prior primary total hip arthroplasty and 62.5% of patients (n = 5) with prior revision total hip arthroplasty, had not required subsequent revision for any cause. None (0%) of the primary total hip arthroplasty group and 3 (38%) of the revision arthroplasty group had required revision for further dislocation. Of the eight revision arthroplasty patients, four had a prior revision for dislocation and three of these four patients required further revision for dislocation after index surgery. The fourth patient had no dislocation after index surgery. One additional patient who had prior revision surgery for femoral component fracture suffered dislocation after index surgery, but was successfully treated with closed reduction. Conclusions: In our study population, femoral head and liner exchange was an effective treatment option for patients with prior primary total hip arthroplasty and also for a highly select group of revision total arthroplasty patients with no prior history of dislocation. Femoral head and liner exchange does not appear to be a viable treatment option for patients who have had revision total arthroplasty after prior dislocations.

Cementation of a dual-mobility cup into a well-fixed cementless shell in patients with high risk of dislocation undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Cementation of polyethylene liners into well-fixed cementless metal shells has become an option during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the results of cementing a dual-mobility (DM) component into a stable acetabular shell in high-risk patients undergoing revision THA.

METHODS

A single-centre series of 10 patients undergoing revision THA with a DM cup cemented into an existing well-fixed shell between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Failure due to aseptic loosening or instability and implant survival at last follow-up were analysed. The average age was 79.2 years and mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Indications were recurrent hip dislocation in 8 cases and intraoperative instability with moderate abductor insufficiency in 2 cases. In cases with recurrent dislocation, the aetiology of instability was classified by Wera type.

RESULTS

At the latest follow-up, Harris Hip Scores had improved from 49.3 preoperatively to 71.3 postoperatively (p = 0.098). In the 8 patients with recurrent dislocation, 4 cases (50%) had an unclear aetiology (Wera type 6), 2 (25%) abductor deficiency (Wera type 3) and 2 (25%) late polyethylene wear (type 5).Postoperative recurrent dislocation occurred in 1 hip (10%). No cases of intraprosthetic dislocation, aseptic loosening of the previous shell or dissociation at the cement-cup interface were identified.

CONCLUSION

Although the follow-up of this series is short, cementation of a DM cup into a previous well-fixed socket seems to be a viable option to treat and prevent instability after revision THA, without providing constraint at the cement-cup interface.

Cementation of the highly cross-linked polyethylene liner into a well-fixed acetabular shell to treat patients with recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

Cementation of a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner into a well-fixed acetabular shell provided a good durability for liner wear. However, its efficacy in treating recurrent instability due to malposition cup is less reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of this surgical technique to treat hip instability. From 2009 to 2019, we have identified 38 patients who had been surgically treated for recurrent instability, including cementation liner (N = 20) and revision cup (N = 18) procedures. Patients were followed for a mean of 45.66 months. We have recorded and analyzed all causes of implant failure including recurrent instability. Clinical outcomes were assessed including complication and Harris Hip Score (HHS) preoperatively and at the latest follow-up. Revision-free survivorship for any cause was 95.0% at 1 year, and 84.4% at 5 years in cementation liner group and 88.9% at 1 year and 5 years in revision cup group. Mean Harris hip score improved from 48.3 points preoperatively to 79.5 points at the last follow-up in cementation liner group and mean HHS improved from 43.3 points preoperatively to 77.2 points in revision cup group. There were two implant failures in each group, including one is due to persistent hip instability and the other is due to periprosthetic joint infection in the cementation liner group and two implant failure are due to persistent hip instability in the revision cup group. Functional scores and implant survival were similar in both groups. We demonstrated that orientation correction via the cementation of the polyethylene liner into well-fixed acetabular shell is a promising option to treat and prevent instability. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV.

Outcomes of Isolated Head and Liner Exchange Using Large Femoral Heads and Modern Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Previous reports on the outcomes of isolated head and liner exchange in revision total hip arthroplasty have found high rates of instability after these surgeries. Most reports have studied constructs using ≤28 mm femoral heads. The purpose of this study was to determine if modern techniques with the use of larger head sizes can improve the rate of instability after head and liner exchange.

METHODS

We identified 138 hips in 132 patients who underwent isolated head and liner exchange for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (57%), acute infection (27%), metallosis (13%), or other (2%). All patients underwent revision with either 32 (23%), 36 (62%), or 40 (15%) mm diameter heads. Cross-linked polyethylene was used in all revisions. Lipped and/or offset liners were used in 104 (75%) hips. Average follow-up was 3.5 (1.0-9.1) years. Statistical analyses were performed with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Revision-free survivorship for any cause was 94.6% and for aseptic causes was 98.2% at 5 years. 11 (8%) hips experienced a complication with 7 (5%) hips requiring additional revision surgery. After revision, 4 (3%) hips experienced dislocation, 5 (4%) hips experienced infection, and 1 (1%) hip was revised for trunnionosis. No demographic or surgical factors significantly affected outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that isolated head and liner exchange using large femoral heads and modern liners provides for better stability than previous reports. The most common complication was infection. We did not identify specific patient, surgical, or implant factors that reduced the risk of instability or other complication.

Utilizing Dual Mobility Components for First-Time Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Instability

BACKGROUND

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant clinical problem. Few studies have focused on the use of dual mobility (DM) components in the setting of first-time revision for instability following THA. Here, we investigate patient outcomes following first-time revision THA with DM components for a diagnosis of instability.

METHODS

Institution-wide revision THAs using DM components performed between 2010 and 2013 were identified. Chart review identified 40 patients with average 3-year follow-up who had undergone first-time revision for instability, defined as instability after primary THA. Etiology of instability was classified by Wera type. Patient demographics, medical co-morbidities, re-dislocations, and re-revisions were recorded. Component position and leg-length discrepancy were measured on pre-operative and post-operative radiographs when available. Utilizing Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test, we analyzed differences between those who endured recurrent dislocation and those who did not.

RESULTS

Recurrent dislocation occurred in 2 patients (5%). Both patients underwent re-revision for recurrent instability and carried diagnoses of instability of unresolved etiology. Two patients underwent re-revision for reasons unrelated to the DM construct. All-cause re-revision rate at final follow-up was therefore 10% (4 patients). No medical, demographic, or radiographic factors were significantly associated with risk of recurrent instability (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The use of DM components for first-time revision THA for a diagnosis of instability carried a re-dislocation rate of 5% and an all-cause re-revision rate of 10% at average 3-year follow-up. Instability of unresolved etiology was associated with re-dislocation following revision surgery.

The Cumulative Risk of Re-dislocation After Revision THA Performed for Instability Increases Close to 35% at 15years

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 539 hips undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty done for instability to report the cumulative risk and factors associated with re-dislocation and re-revision. The cumulative risk of re-dislocation and re-revision for all cause was 34.5% and 45.9% at 15 years, respectively. Multiple variable analyses revealed history of 2 or more previous surgeries, use of head size less than 36 mm, and cup retention to be risk factors for re-dislocation and re-revision. The use of a constrained liner was protective against re-dislocation but was not associated with a lower re-revision rate. Understanding the risk factors associated with re-dislocation or re-revision may help with perioperative decision making in order to decrease the high failure rate seen in this study.

Efficacy of revision surgery for the dislocating total hip arthroplasty: report from a large community registry

BACKGROUND

Historically, achieving stability for the unstable total hip arthroplasty (THA) with revision surgery has been achieved inconsistently. Most of what we know about this topic comes from reports of high-volume surgeons' results; the degree to which these results are achieved in the community is largely unknown, but insofar as most joint replacements are done by community surgeons, the issue is important.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used a community joint registry to determine: (1) the frequency of repeat revision after surgery to treat the unstable THA; (2) what surgical approaches to this problem are in common use in the community now; (3) are there differences in repeat revision frequency that vary by approach used; and (4) has the frequency of repeat revision decreased over time as surgical technique and implant options have evolved?

METHODS

We reviewed 6801 primary THAs performed in our community joint registry over the last 20 years. One hundred eighteen patients (1.7%) with a mean age of 67 years were revised within the registry for instability/dislocation. Failure was defined as a return to the operating room for rerevision surgery for instability. Minimum followup was 2 years (average, 9.4 years; range, 2-20 years) with six patients having incomplete followup. The frequency of rerevisions was calculated and compared using Pearson's chi-square test. Cumulative rerevision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and types of revision procedures were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The initial revision procedure was successful in 108 patients (92%); 10 patients underwent repeat surgery for recurrent dislocation after their initial revision surgery. The most frequently performed procedure was revision of the head and liner only (35 of 118 [30%]); constrained devices were used in 19% (22 of 118) of the procedures. There was no difference in the cumulative rerevision rates for instability or dislocation by type of revision procedure performed. Six of 22 constrained liners were rerevised for varying indications. There was no difference in frequency of repeat revision for instability between those patients revised for THAs performed before 2003 and those managed more recently.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision surgery for unstable THA is successfully managed in the community with a variety of surgical interventions. Identifying the reason for dislocation and addressing the source remain paramount. Constrained liners should be used with caution; although typically used in the most problematic settings, rerevision for a variety of failure modes remains troublesome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Method of fixation does not influence the overall risk of rerevision in first-time cup revisions

BACKGROUND

During the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups.

QUESTION/PURPOSES

We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision.

METHODS

Between 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision.

RESULTS

The relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.

Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite dislocation being the most frequent complication after revision THA, risk factors for its occurrence are not completely understood.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore (1) determined the overall risk of dislocation after revision THA in a large series of revision THAs using contemporary revision techniques, (2) identified patient-related risk factors predicting dislocation, and (3) identified surgical variables predicting dislocation.

METHODS

We performed 1211 revision THAs between June 2004 and October 2010 in 576 women and 415 men who had a mean age of 64.7 years (range, 25-95 years) at time of surgery. Forty-six (4%) were lost to followup and 13 died (1%), leaving 1152 hips followed for a minimum of 90 days (mean, 2 years; range, 90 days to 7.1 years). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for dislocation. The model was also tested on patients followed for a minimum 1 year to assess any difference in longer followup.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen patients dislocated over the followup period (9.8%). Factors that were different between patients who dislocated and those who remained stable included a history of at least one previous dislocation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.673), abductor deficiency (OR = 2.672), and Paprosky acetabulum class (OR = 1.522). Use of a constrained liner (OR = 0.503) and increased femoral head size (OR = 0.942) were protective against dislocation, while with longer followup a constrained liner was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation remains a common problem after revision THA. Identifying these risk factors can assist in patient education and surgical planning. Recognition of these risk factors in both patient type and surgical strategy is important for the surgeon performing revision THA and for minimizing these risks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Instability after total hip arthroplasty

Instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an unfortunately frequent and serious problem that requires thorough evaluation and preoperative planning before surgical intervention. Prevention through optimal index surgery is of great importance, as the management of an unstable THA is challenging even for an experienced joints surgeon. However, even after well-planned surgery, a significant incidence of recurrent instability still exists. Non-operative management is often successful if the components are well-fixed and correctly positioned in the absence of neurocognitive disorders. If conservative management fails, surgical options include revision of malpositioned components; exchange of modular components such as the femoral head and acetabular liner; bipolar arthroplasty; tripolar arthroplasty; use of a larger femoral head; use of a constrained liner; soft tissue reinforcement and advancement of the greater trochanter.

Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure?

Dislocation is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we evaluated treatment strategies in patients undergoing revision THA for instability. A total of 156 hips in 154 patients underwent revision THA for instability between 2000 and 2007 at our institution. Demographic data and surgical treatment used were analyzed to determine risk factors for failure. Revision treatments included acetabular components in 100 hips, liner exchange in 56 hips, and femoral and acetabular components in 13 hips. Thirty-three (21.2%) had further dislocation. Isolated liner revision (P = .004), previous revision arthroplasty (P < .05), and the use of a 28-mm femoral head were associated with higher failure rates. A total of 20.3% (12/59) of constrained liners failed. Isolated liner exchange, history of revision, and use of a 28-mm head were associated with failure in revision THA for instability.