In Revision THA, Is the Re-revision Risk for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Greater in Dual-mobility Constructs or Large Femoral Head Bearings? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Repeat Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Recurrent Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: Sobering Results

BACKGROUND

A two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the standard management method of chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip in North America. However, a subset of patients become reinfected and may require a repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to assess revisions, reoperations, and risk factors for failure associated with repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasties for recurrent PJIs after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

We identified 52 repeat two-stage exchange THAs completed from 2000 to 2021 at a single, high-volume academic medical center. The mean age was 61 years, 39% were women, and the mean body mass index was 33. At the time of the repeat two-stage exchange, high-dose antibiotic spacers were used in 90% of patients (28 articulating, 19 nonarticulating), and 10% had a resection arthroplasty in the interim between stages. The mean time from repeat first stage to reimplantation was 33 weeks. At the final follow-up, 54% of patients were on chronic antibiotic therapy. The mean follow-up was 6 years.

RESULTS

The 7-year survivorships free of re-revision for reinfection, any re-revision, and any reoperation were 85, 57, and 50%, respectively. The leading indications for re-revision were dislocation (45%) and PJI (35%). McPherson host grade C was a significant risk factor for re-revision for infection (HR [hazard ratio] 5, P = 0.04). Additionally, increased operative time at reimplantation was a risk for any reoperation (HR 1.06, P < 0.01) and reoperation for infection (HR 1.07, P < 0.01). At the final follow-up, 98% of patients had a revision THA in situ (one hip disarticulation).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the hip had a 7-year survivorship free of re-revision for infection that was 85%, but only 57% were free of any re-revision (most due to revision for dislocation). McPherson C hosts had a 5-fold increased risk of reinfection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

What Is the Most Optimal Bearing Surface for Minimizing Instability After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Based on the results of our meta-analysis, dual mobility implants appear to have the most efficacy in preventing instability following revision total hip arthroplasty. Notwithstanding, given the relatively small sample sizes of the included studies, in conjunction with heterogeneity in study design, it is important to recognize that further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine the optimal bearing surface to reduce the risk of instability after revision total hip arthroplasty.

Outcomes of Dual Mobility Versus Fixed-Bearing Components in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) implants have received increasing interest in revision surgery due to their increased stability. The aim of this systematic review was to compare outcomes of DM versus conventional fixed-bearing (FB) implants in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases between January 2000 and 2023. Outcome measures included rerevision due to dislocation, rerevision for other causes, all-cause rerevision, total complication rate, and functional outcome measures. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies assessment tool was used to evaluate methodological quality and the risk of bias. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted, with an assessment of heterogeneity using the Chi-square and Higgins I2 tests. A further subgroup analysis was performed between DM implants and larger femoral head (> 36 mm) FB implants.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies met the final inclusion criteria, with an overall number of 5,004 rTHA hips included (2,108 DM and 2,896 FB). The DM implants had significantly lower odds of rerevision due to dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, P < 0.001), aseptic loosening (OR 0.54, P = 0.004), and all-cause rerevision (OR 0.55, P < 0.001) compared to FB implants. No statistically significant difference was seen in the odds of rerevision due to periprosthetic joint infection (OR 0.99, P = 0.94) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 0.59, P = 0.13) between the 2 groups. The total number of complications showed an odds benefit in favor of DM implants (OR 0.43, P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of rerevision due to dislocation (OR 0.69, P = 0.11) between DM and larger femoral head FB implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current literature, it appears DM implants are an effective modality for reducing dislocation following rTHA with lower complication rates compared to FB implants. However, further prospective randomized controlled trials with longer term follow-up are required.

Modular dual-mobility constructs outperformed large femoral heads in 299 revision total hip arthroplasties at mid-term follow-up

Aims

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications.

Methods

We identified 299 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from March 2011 to July 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n = 65), dislocation (n = 58), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n = 57) were the most common reasons for index revision. MDM constructs were used in 123 cases, and LFHs were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years (28 to 93), mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 (18 to 55), and 45% (n = 136) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 12).

Results

The ten-year survival free of re-revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 95 to 100) in the MDM cohort and 91% (95% CI 84 to 96) in the LFH cohort, with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 7.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 40.8); p = 0.023). The ten-year survival free of any re-revision was 92% (95% CI 82 to 99%) in the MDM cohort and 84% (95% CI 74 to 90) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.9); p = 0.024). The ten-year survival free of any dislocation was 95% (95% CI 85 to 99) in the MDM cohort and 87% (95% CI 78 to 92) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.3); p = 0.028). There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.

Conclusion

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs with a MDM construct safely and effectively lowered the risk of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and any dislocation compared to LFH at mid-term follow-up. There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.

Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age: Results of >500 Cases

BACKGROUND

There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure.

METHODS

We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The True Dislocation Incidence following Elective Total Hip Replacement in Sweden: How Does It Relate to the Revision Rate?

(1) Background: The true dislocation incidence following THA is difficult to ascertain in population-based cohorts. In this study, we explored the cumulative dislocation incidence (CDI), the relationship between the incidence of dislocation and revision surgery, patient- and surgery-related factors in patients dislocating once or multiple times, and differences between patients being revised for dislocation or not. (2) Methods: We designed an observational longitudinal cohort study linking registers. All patients with a full dataset who underwent an elective unilateral THA between 1999 and 2014 were included. The CDI and the time from the index THA to the first dislocation or to revision were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, giving cumulative dislocation and revision incidences at different time points. (3) Results: 136,810 patients undergoing elective unilateral THA were available for the analysis. The 30-day CDI was estimated at 0.9% (0.9-1.0). The revision rate for dislocation throughout the study period remained much lower. A total of 51.2% (CI 49.6-52.8) suffered a further dislocation within 1 year. Only 10.9% of the patients with a dislocation within the first year postoperatively underwent a revision for dislocation. (4) Discussion: The CDI after elective THA was expectedly considerably higher than the revision incidence. Further studies investigating differences between single and multiple dislocators and the criteria by which patients are offered revision surgery following dislocation are urgently needed.

Dual-Mobility Versus Large Femoral Heads in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Interim Analysis of A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluated if dual-mobility bearings (DM) lower the risk of dislocation compared to large femoral heads (≥36mm) for patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterior approach.

METHODS

A total of 146 Patients were randomized to a DM (n=76; 46 mm median effective head size, range 36 to 59 mm) or a large femoral head (n=70; twenty-five 36 mm heads [35.7%], forty-one 40 mm heads [58.6%], and four 44mm heads [5.7%]). There were 71 single-component revisions (48.6%), 39 both-component revisions (26.7%), 24 reimplantations of THA after 2-stage revision (16.4%), seven isolated head and liner exchanges (4.8%), four conversions of hemiarthroplasty (2.7%), and one revision of a hip resurfacing (0.7%). Power analysis determined that 161 patients were required in each group to lower the dislocation rate from 8.4 to 2.2% (power=0.8, alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

At a mean of 18.2 months (range, 1.4 to 48.2), there were three dislocations in the large femoral head group compared to two in the DM cohort (4.3 vs. 2.6%; P=0.67). One patient in the large head group and none in the DM group were successfully treated with closed reduction without subsequent revision.

CONCLUSION

Interim analysis of this randomized controlled trial found no difference in the risk of dislocation between DM and large femoral heads in revision THA, although the rate of dislocation was lower than anticipated and continued follow up is needed.