Extensively coated non-modular stem used in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty: mid-term to long-term follow-up

Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The popularity of uncemented stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in the last decade.

AIM

To assess the outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems after mid-term follow up.

METHODS

This study was performed following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were chosen irrespective of country of origin or language utilized for the article full texts. This paper included studies that reviewed revision THA for both cemented or uncemented long stems.

RESULTS

Three eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis was conducted by using Review Manager version 5.3. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used random-effect models. There were no significant differences found for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-5.32; P = 0.76], aseptic loosening (RR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.81-5.70; P = 0.13), dislocation rate (RR = 0.50; 95%CI: 0.10-2.47; P = 0.39), or infection rate (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.82-1.19; P = 0.89), between the uncemented and the cemented long stems for revision THA after mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study has evaluated the mid-term outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems at first-time revision THA. In summary, there were no significant differences in the dislocation rate, aseptic loosening, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture and infection rate between the two cohorts.

Risk factors for failure after cementless femoral revision THA: a consecutive series of 105 cases

INTRODUCTION

Cementless femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) after periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening or infection is a challenging surgical procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and reasons for failure after two-stage septic revision, periprosthetic fracture or aseptic loosening that may reveal a rationale for cementless RTHA in two-stage revisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 105 cases using cementless femoral revision prostheses were evaluated retrospectively. Indications for revision were 39 two-stage revisions after infection, 49 aseptic loosenings, and 17 periprosthetic fractures. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed using infection with or without removal of the implant as an endpoint.

RESULTS

Incidence of infection with or without implant removal was significantly higher in patients treated for periprosthetic fractures compared to two-stage revisions or aseptic loosening (log-rank P < 0.0001). The mean follow-up period was 6.4 (2.0-13.7) years. Using infection with or without implant removal as the endpoint, 12 patients were diagnosed after the index operation resulting in a cumulative risk after 13.7 years of 29.9% (95% CI 0-61.2).

CONCLUSION

Cementless revision using a modular tapered device is reliable with respect to reinfection risk in two-stage procedures.

Midterm results and complications rates in vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with modular fluted tapered stems

Evaluate the mid-term success rate of these stems in periprosthetic femur fractures and to analyze the complications observed with the use of these stems.

METHODS

Thirty five patients that underwent hip revision surgery secondary to Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fracture were evaluated. In all cases, modular fluted tapered stems were used.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 42 months. Average Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 78.11. Fracture healing was obtained in a 100% of the patients. Average implant survival was 50 months.

CONCLUSION

Modular fluted tapered stems demonstrated a high rate implant stability, proximal femoral bone reconstitution, and fracture healing.

Clinical, radiographic, and survivorship analysis of a modular fluted tapered stem in revision hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Modular fluted tapered stems are one of the most commonly used implants in femoral revision surgery. Due to the relative lack of studies on the Restoration modular fluted tapered stem, we conducted a study to evaluate its short- to mid-term clinical, radiographic, and survival outcomes.

METHODS

We identified all 45 patients treated with this revision stem at our institution. Five patients did not complete the minimum 2-year follow-up, leaving 40 patients (41 hips) for assessment. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years (range 2-11 years). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). Radiographs were evaluated for subsidence and loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed using revision of the stem for any reason as end point.

RESULTS

The mean HHS improved from 44.6 points preoperatively to 78.4 points at the most recent follow-up (p < 0.0001). Nonprogressive subsidence occurred in 83% of the hips (mean 2.8 mm; range 1-7 mm). One stem (2.4%) showed progressive subsidence (20 mm) and was considered loose. The most common cause for reoperation was dislocation (three hips, 7.3%). The 10-year survivorship with revision of the stem for any reason as the end point was 93.5% (95% CI, 84.9-100%).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant improvement in the HHS and a low likelihood of revision at short- to mid-term follow-up, adding to the current evidence base for use of this implant in revision surgery. A longer follow-up and a larger number of cases are necessary to fully evaluate its role and performance.

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Oncologic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Game Changer?

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered (MFT) stems are the most frequently used femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Despite this, no data are available on how they perform in revision THA for oncologic salvage. This is a unique population, often with severe bone loss and prior radiation that extends the limits of uncemented femoral reconstruction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of MFT stems used for revision oncologic salvage.

METHODS

We identified 17 patients treated initially with primary THA for an oncologic diagnosis (15 primary oncologic, 2 metastatic disease) who underwent subsequent femoral revision with an MFT stem. Mean age at revision was 66 years and 35% of patients were female. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Before revision, 5 of 17 had undergone local radiation.

RESULTS

Ten-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 100%. The survivorship free of any reoperation was 76%. There were no femoral component fractures. Three patients were revised for recurrent instability, and 1 patient underwent irrigation and debridement for an acute infection. At most recent follow-up, no patient had radiographic evidence of progressive femoral component subsidence or failure of osteointegration. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 29 preoperatively to 76 postoperatively (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In this series of patients with cancer, many of whom had severe bone loss and/or prior local radiation, being treated with revision THA, there were no revisions for femoral component loosening and no cases of implant fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

What is the Long-term Economic Societal Effect of Periprosthetic Infections After THA? A Markov Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current estimates for the direct costs of a single episode of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after THA are approximately USD 100,000. These estimates do not account for the costs of failed treatments and do not include indirect costs such as lost wages.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The goal of this study was to estimate the long-term economic effect to society (direct and indirect costs) of a PJI after THA treated with contemporary standards of care in a hypothetical patient of working age (three scenarios, age 55, 60, and 65 years).

METHODS

We created a state-transition Markov model with health states defined by surgical treatment options including irrigation and débridement with modular exchange, single-stage revision, and two-stage revision. Reoperation rates attributable to septic and aseptic failure modes and indirect and direct costs were calculated estimates garnered via multiple systematic reviews of peer-reviewed orthopaedic and infectious disease journals and Medicare reimbursement data. We conducted an analysis over a hypothetical patient's lifetime from the societal perspective with costs discounted by 3% annually. We conducted sensitivity analysis to delineate the effects of uncertainty attributable to input variables.

RESULTS

The model found a base case cost of USD 390,806 per 65-year-old patient with an infected THA. One-way sensitivity analysis gives a range of USD 389,307 (65-year-old with a 3% reinfection rate) and USD 474,004 (55-year-old with a 12% reinfection rate). Indirect costs such as lost wages make up a considerable portion of the costs and increase considerably as age at the time of infection decreases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that the overall treatment of a periprosthetic infection after a THA is markedly more expensive to society than previously estimated when accounting for the considerable failure rates of current treatment options and including indirect costs. These overall costs, combined with a large projected increase in THAs and a steady state of septic failures, should be taken into account when considering the total cost of THA. Further research is needed to adequately compare the clinical and economic effectiveness of alternative treatment pathways.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, economic and decision analysis.

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered stems have become the most commonly employed category of femoral component in revision hip arthroplasty in North America as a result of favorable early results and simplicity of use. Despite wide adoption, the majority of published data are limited to relatively small series with modest follow-up. The goal of the current study was to determine the success rate and factors associated with success, failure, and complications of the use of modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in a large patient cohort.

METHODS

We identified 519 aseptic femoral revisions during which a modular fluted tapered stem was utilized. Clinical outcomes, Kaplan-Meier survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and complications were assessed. The mean age at revision arthroplasty was 70 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m, and the mean duration of follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 2 to 14 years).

RESULTS

The mean Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 51 points preoperatively to 76 points at 2 years (p < 0.001). This improvement was maintained at the last follow-up evaluation (mean HHS = 75 points). At the time of the most recent follow-up, 16 femoral revisions had been performed: 6 because of aseptic loosening, 4 because of infection, 3 because of instability, 2 because of periprosthetic fracture, and 1 because of stem fracture. The 10-year survivorship was 96% with revision for any reason as the end point and 90% with any reoperation as the end point. Of the patients who were alive and had not undergone revision at the time of final follow-up, 12 had stem subsidence but all but 1 of these stems had stabilized after subsiding. Postoperative complications were noted in 12% of the cases. Repeat revision due to femoral component loosening was not correlated with the preoperative bone-loss category or patient demographic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large series, femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem provided a high rate of osseointegration and sustained improvement in clinical scores at the time of the last follow-up. There was also a high rate of successful implant fixation across all categories of preoperative bone loss and an acceptable rate of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Are Range of Motion Measurements Needed When Calculating the Harris Hip Score?

BACKGROUND

Often the patient-reported outcome (PRO) component of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) is completed, but the physician-assessed range of motion (ROM) component is not. The PRO component only is called a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). The purpose of this study was to determine if a statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference existed when calculating the HHS with and without the physician-reported ROM portion.

METHODS

Included patients had complete HHS data (both physician and PRO components). Surgical procedure (primary or revision) was recorded for each subject. American Society of Anesthesiologists score was divided into low and high groups. Body mass index was divided into 4 categories. The study used a repeated measures design.

RESULTS

Data on 483 patients were collected between 12 and 60 months postoperatively (mean follow-up: 32.5 months, mean age: 55.9 ± 13.5 years). A mean difference of 4 points existed between the 2 groups: HHS group average score was 84.56 ± 13.18, and mHHS group average score was 88.74 ± 13.77. American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and surgical type demonstrated a significant interaction with the HHS calculation method (P < .001). Primary total joint patients demonstrated a greater difference between the 2 scoring methods compared with revision patients.

CONCLUSION

No clinically meaningful difference in outcomes was found between the mHHS and the HHS. The calculation of the HHS is dependent on the inclusion of the ROM measurement. However, the small point difference between the HHS and mHHS indicates that the mHHS is still useful as an accurate determinant of patient clinical outcome, and ROM assessment is not essential.

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review

PURPOSE

As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review.

METHODS

This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion.

RESULTS

Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.