Socket wall addition device in the treatment of recurrent hip prosthesis dislocation: good outcome in 12 patients followed for 4.5 (1-9) years

Acetabular Lip Augmentation Devices for the Unstable Total Hip Replacement-A Systematic Review

Background

The optimal management strategy for instability afte total hip arthroplasty remains unclear. Acetabular lip augmentation devices may offer an operative solution for recurrent instability. This systematic review reports the clinical outcomes of acetabular lip augmentation devices in comparison to other treatment options.

Methods

A literature search strategy was performed of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on September 19, 2020, for all studies reporting outcomes of acetabular lip augmentation devices for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Non-English language articles were excluded. Clinical and survivorship data were collated and analyzed.

Results

Thirteen studies describing acetabular augmentation were included for analysis. A total of 644 hips in 636 patients were augmented with a mean age of 75 years (39 to 103). Five different augmentation devices were used. The posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD, DePuy) was the most used (406 hips). Overall, acetabular lip augmentation devices had a 10% postoperative dislocation rate at a mean follow-up of 49 months (0.2 to 132). The PLAD had a 3.9% subsequent dislocation rate with a mean follow-up of 51 months (0.2 to 132). Only one study compared the PLAD to a dual-mobility cup, which demonstrated shorter operative times with the PLAD but higher rates of dislocation and revision surgery.

Conclusion

The quality of literature on lip acetabular augmentation devices is poor. In these studies, the postoperative dislocation rate after lip acetabular augmentation was relatively high. The PLAD (DePuy) has the most evidence and may offer a therapeutic option for recurrent instability, in very specific clinical situations.

Outcome of revision surgery in recurrent dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The cause of recurrent dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is multifactorial. A re-dislocation rate of up-to 34% following revision is reported. The aim of this study was to determine the re-dislocation rates following revision for recurrent THR dislocation.

METHODOLOGY

Patients who underwent revision for recurrent dislocation between January 2008 and January 2015 were identified. We identified the date and type of primary implant, overall number and reasons for dislocation, revision implant details and complication data.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 24 patients underwent revision. The median age was 77 (68-85) years, median time to first dislocation was 78 (23-160) months and median number of dislocations was 3 (2-4) with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Socket Mal-Orientation (10) and Abductor deficiency (5) were the main causes of recurrent dislocation. 21 patients (88%) underwent revision of both components, 1 patient underwent isolated cup revision and 2 patients had revision of acetabular component with insertion of a BioBall. There were no dislocations within 90 days of revision surgery. 4 patients had late dislocations (3 recurrent, 1 isolated). There was no significant increase risk of dislocation after revision surgery in the neck of femur group (p = 0.467).

CONCLUSIONS

We report favourable outcomes for revision of both components for recurrent dislocation with no dislocations within 90 days. The overall late dislocation rate was 16.7%, however, these patients have settled following closed reduction. Due to its multifactorial aetiology, both component revision can be considered in this patient population.

Effective prevention of recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip arthroplasty using a posterior lip augmentation device

PURPOSE

This retrospective study was performed to determine the effectiveness of preventing recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip replacement using a posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD).

METHODS

Between January 2003 and Dezember 2006, 27 PLADs were used in the treatment of recurrent hip dislocation in 27 patients who had received a cemented primary total hip arthroplasty using Endo-MarkIII/SP2 (Waldemar LINK, Hamburg, Germany) components. The mean number of dislocations prior to stabilization with this specific device was 2.6 (range 2-4, SD ± 0.4) with a mean time to revision surgery of 10 months (IQR 13). The mean age of the patients at time of revision surgery was 81.5 years (range 70-94, SD ± 6.9). The control group evaluating the clinical outcome using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) also received a cemented primary total hip arthroplasty using the same implants. A retrospective clinical and radiological review was carried out at a mean follow-up of 68.5 months (range 30-103, SD ± 17.7).

RESULTS

Of the 27 patients, 6 had died at the time of the latest review, with the posterior lip augmentation device still in situ and without reported further dislocation after PLAD application. In 2 of the remaining 21 patients recurrent dislocation occurred, thus a subsequent revision of respective implants had to be performed to achieve persistent joint stability. At latest follow-up no deep infection or implant loosening occurred.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip replacement using a posterior lip augmentation device is a safe and effective procedure which can lead to a secondary stabilization of the total hip arthroplasty in about 90 % of the patients.

Outcome of treatment for dislocation after primary total hip replacement

We have studied the natural history of a first episode of dislocation after primary total hip replacement (THR) to clarify the incidence of recurrent dislocation, the need for subsequent revision and the quality of life of these patients.

Over a six-year period, 99 patients (101 hips) presented with a first dislocation of a primary THR. A total of 61 hips (60.4%) had dislocated more than once. After a minimum follow-up of one year, seven patients had died. Of the remaining 94 hips (92 patients), 47 underwent a revision for instability and one awaits operation (51% in total). Of these, seven re-dislocated and four needed further surgery. The quality of life of the patients was studied using the Oxford Hip Score and the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A control group of patients who had not dislocated was also studied. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1 to 20), the mean Oxford Hip Score was 26.7 (15 to 47) after one episode of dislocation, 27.2 (12 to 45) after recurrent dislocation, 34.5 (12 to 54) after successful revision surgery, 42 (29 to 55) after failed revision surgery and 17.4 (12 to 32) in the control group. The EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire revealed more health problems in patients undergoing revision surgery.