Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications

A UK multicentre cohort study of clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement for nononcological conditions : the EndoProsthetic Replacement for nonOncological conditions (EPRO) study

Aims

This study aims to determine the outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for nononcological conditions.

Methods

This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study across six UK centres. The primary outcome was the local complication rate. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusions, critical care requirements, return to baseline mobility and residence status, systemic complications, reoperations, and mortality rates. Implant survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology with local complication as the endpoint, and was compared by surgical indication, stem length, and construct stem ratio (CSR).

Results

There were 230 PFRs in 226 patients with a median age of 76.0 years (IQR 66.9 to 83.7). Indications were periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 62; 27%), infected revision arthroplasty (n = 55; 24%), chronic/failed trauma (n = 41; 18%), aseptic revision arthroplasty (n = 38; 17%), acute trauma (n = 33; 14%), and complex primary arthroplasty (n = 1; 0.5%). Median follow-up was 4.2 years (IQR 1.9 to 7.2). The local complication rate was 27% (n = 62). The most common local complications were dislocation (n = 27; 12%) and periprosthetic joint infection (n = 22; 10%). Blood transfusion was required in 86 patients (37%). Overall, 90 patients (39%) required critical care facilities. A return to baseline mobility and residence was observed in 127 (55%) and 200 (87%) patients, respectively. The six-month systemic complication rate was 9% (n = 21) and the reoperation rate was 21% (n = 48). The 30-day and one-year mortality rates were 2% (n = 4) and 8% (n = 19), respectively. The two-year implant survival rate was 78.0% (SE 2.8). Survival rates did not differ significantly by surgical indication, stem length, or CSR.

Conclusion

This is the largest study of PFR for nononcological conditions. Due to high local complication and reoperation rates, it should be considered a salvage option for complex hip reconstruction and patients should be counselled appropriately.

Use of dual mobility cup cemented into a tantalum acetabular shell for hip revision with large bone loss can decrease dislocation risk without increasing the risk of mechanical failure

BACKGROUND

Porous tantalum components and augments have demonstrated short to midterm fixation stability in acetabular total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision but do not offer a novel option to decrease the postoperative dislocation rate. Recently, dual mobility (DM) cups have gained interest to decrease the prevalence of recurrent hip instability after revision hip arthroplasty, but this issue was not confirmed combined with use of tantalum reconstruction devices. Therefore, we did a retrospective study aiming to: (1) evaluate at a 5-year minimum follow-up period the dislocation rate (and other intra- and postoperative complications), (2) assess radiographic results specifically looking at osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, (3) and also clinical results in a cohort of patients who underwent complex acetabular reconstruction with trabecular metal revision components associated with a cemented DM socket.

HYPOTHESIS

Using a DM socket cemented in porous tantalum components can reach the low risk of hip dislocation reported with DM components in revision setting without increasing the risk of a mechanical failure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study identified 174 THA revision including an acetabular revision. Were excluded 118 revisions with acetabular defects Type 1, 2a or 2B according to Paprosky's classification, as well as 18 hips revised without a dual mobility and 3 patients (3 hips) lost to follow-up. Were thus included in this study 35 hips (35 patients) implanted with uncemented total hip arthroplasty revision using both trabecular metal acetabular cup-cage reconstruction and a cemented DM cup. Seven hips were classified Paprosky types 2C, 15 type 3A and 13 types 3B. Patients were followed with clinical and radiological evaluation regarding dislocation rate, infection, reoperation or re-revision, osseointegration and restoration of the hip center, and functional results according to the Harris hip score and psoas impingement presence.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 8.1±1.8 years (5.1-12.6), one dislocation was recorded, and one acute deep infection. No patient required a cup re-revision for septic or aseptic loosening. The survivorship at 8years regarding revision for any cause as an endpoint was 96.5% (CI95%: 92-99). Osseointegration of TM implants was analyzed and found no acetabular migration at the last follow-up in the cohort. The mean hip center position was optimized from 48±7mm (37-58) to 34±5mm (29-39) vertically and from 26±5mm (-18-36) to 24±8mm (7-31) horizontally without reaching significance (p=0.1). On the last follow-up X-rays, the mean acetabular inclination was 47̊±9̊ (32̊-61̊). According to the criteria of Hirakawa, 97.1% (34/35) of the hip centers were restored. One cup (2.9%) was more than 5mm proximally from the hip center, and none more than 10mm. Clinical results assessed a Harris Hip Score improved from 36±17 (23-62) preoperatively to 82±15 (69-93) at last follow-up (p<0.0001). Two patients (2/35, 5.7%) complained of psoas impingement.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests effectiveness of DM cups in association with a tantalum-made acetabular shell for reconstruction of large bone defect in THRs for both solving postoperative instability and aseptic loosening without increasing the re-revision rate for any reason in a midterm follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; observational study.

Should trochanteric fractures in elderly patients be treated by arthroplasty or internal fixation?

Most trochanteric fractures are treated by fixation, most often intramedullary. Nevertheless, the desire to have patients walk as soon as possible and the fear of fixation failure has driven some surgeons to carry out an arthroplasty instead, especially for unstable fractures and/or in patients with severe osteoporosis, in order to avoid the difficult conversion to arthroplasty later on if the fixation fails. The aim of this review was to specify the role, technique and results of performing arthroplasty in this context. In which fractures? Unstable fractures (A2.2, A2.3 and A3), especially in osteoporotic bone, which are the most difficult to reduce and fix, and in cases with associated osteoarthritis. For which patients? Arthroplasty should not be done in patients who have ASA≤3 due to greater blood loss and longer operative time. Since the postoperative Parker score often drops, arthroplasty should not be done in patients having a Parker score<6. What are the technical problems? Arthroplasty must be done by an experienced surgeon because of the lack of anatomical landmarks, although fracture fixation has its own demands (satisfactory reduction, appropriate length and position of cervicocephalic screw). What are the results and complications? Despite several comparative studies (randomized trials, meta-analysis and prospective studies), it is difficult to draw any conclusions. These studies show worse performance of dynamic hip screws relative to intramedullary nails. The complication and revision rates were higher for nails than arthroplasty, but not in every study, while the functional outcomes with nails (with or without immediate weightbearing) were better than those of arthroplasty beyond 6 months. What is the mortality rate? It was lower after nailing in a few studies but was mainly determined by the patient's comorbidities and preoperative Parker score. The best indication for arthroplasty may be self-sufficient patients over 70 years of age who have an unstable fracture with severe osteoporosis. Nevertheless, new studies should be done to compare arthroplasty to nailing with immediate return to weightbearing in patients having the same type of fracture, defined using 3D CT scan. Level of evidence: Expert advice.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Long-term Outcome of Total Femur Replacement

Introduction

Total femur replacement is an option instead of amputation for extensive bone tumour or after revision surgery with a massive bone loss. Over a long period of time the patients may need revision surgery, and this might affect the functional outcome. We reviewed all consecutive total femur replacements done for primary and revision surgery of primary bone tumours in our centre to evaluate the long-term functional outcome and survival.

Materials and methods

All patients who had total femur resection and reconstruction with modular endoprosthesis replacement in our centre from June 1997 to May 2022 were reviewed. The respondents were surveyed through WhatsApp using google form which was translated into Bahasa Malaysia based on the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Scoring System (MSTS). The data were presented as descriptive data on the final survival of the limb and prosthesis.

Results

Ten patients underwent total femur replacement. There were eight osteosarcoma, one giant cell tumour and one chondromyxoid fibroma. Three patients with osteosarcoma succumbed to pulmonary metastases; all had good early post-operative functional outcomes without local recurrence. Seven patients were available for long term evaluation of function with a mean follow-up of 17.6 years (ranged 10-25 years). Four patients with total femur replacement had good functional outcomes (60-80%) without revision with 10-25 years follow-up. Three patients experienced acetabulum erosion and chronic pain that required early hip replacements. Two of them were complicated with superior erosions and bone loss and subsequently were managed with massive reconstruction using cemented acetabulum cage reconstruction. The other has diabetes mellitus with chronic infection following revision of distal femur endoprosthesis to total femur replacement and subsequently underwent limited hemipelvectomy after 14 years.

Conclusion

Total femur replacement offers a good long term functional outcome and prosthesis survival and is a favourable option for limb salvage surgery.

Is Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup a Reliable Option in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Background: Instability is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual mobility cup (DMC) allows a reduction in the dislocation rate. The goal of this systematic review was to clarify the different uses and outcomes according to the indications of the cemented DMC (C-DMC). Methods: A systematic review was performed using the keywords "Cemented Dual Mobility Cup" or "Cemented Tripolar Cup" without a publication year limit. Of the 465 studies identified, only 56 were eligible for the study. Results: The overall number of C-DMC was 3452 in 3426 patients. The mean follow-up was 45.9 months (range 12-98.4). In most of the cases (74.5%) C-DMC was used in a revision setting. In 57.5% DMC was cemented directly into the bone, in 39.6% into an acetabular reinforcement and in 3.2% into a pre-existing cup. The overall dislocation rate was 2.9%. The most frequent postoperative complications were periprosthetic infections (2%); aseptic loosening (1.1%) and mechanical failure (0.5%). The overall revision rate was 4.4%. The average survival rate of C-DMC at the last follow-up was 93.5%. Conclusions: C-DMC represents an effective treatment option to limit the risk of dislocations and complications for both primary and revision surgery. C-DMC has good clinical outcomes and a low complication rate.

The Use of Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Lower-Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

»

As the number of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures continues to rise, megaprostheses have found an emerging role in more complex revision arthroplasty cases that require additional reconstruction, stability, and restoration of function.

»

Megaprosthesis options have evolved: in addition to cemented prostheses, cementless and even hybrid fixation designs optimize longevity. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), distal femoral replacement (DFR), proximal tibial replacement (PTR), and total femoral replacement (TFR) are all limb salvage options in the setting of substantial bone loss, poor bone quality, and soft-tissue compromise.

»

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after PFR, likely due to the loss of soft-tissue integrity, most notably the hip abductor musculature from the greater trochanter. The utilization of dual-mobility constructs, larger femoral heads, elevated acetabular liners, and constrained acetabular liners may reduce the risk of instability and improve overall hip function.

»

Patients with megaprostheses may be more prone to periprosthetic joint infection and surgical site infection given multiple variables, such as the lengthy nature of the surgical procedure, prolonged wound exposure, extensive soft-tissue dissection and resection, poor soft-tissue coverage, and poorer host status.

»

Despite advances in technology, complication and revision rates remain high after megaprosthesis reconstruction. Therefore, thorough attention to patient-specific factors must be considered for appropriate use of these constructs.