Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss

Similar risks of complications and reoperation rates in proximal femur megaprostheses for oncological and non-oncological indications

PURPOSE

Proximal femur megaprostheses (PFMPs) are used to manage large bone defects in both non-oncological indications (NOI) and oncological indications (OI). However, little is known about the comparative risks of reoperation and functional outcomes between these groups. This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of reoperation and functional results of PFMPs between NOI and OI.

METHODS

This retrospective, monocentric cohort study included 109 implants between 2005 and 2020 (NOI, n = 42; OI, n = 67). Competing risk analysis was used to estimate and compare cumulative incidence of reoperation and complications, with death as a competing event. The Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS) was retrospectively assessed to compare functional outcomes.

RESULTS

The estimated cumulative incidence of reoperation at ten years did not statistically differ: 33.5% for NOI vs. 32.7% for OI (HR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.42-0.95), p = 0.791). The estimated cumulative incidence of complications at ten years did not statistically differ (HR = 1.50, 95%CI (0.80-2.80), p = 0.204). The MSTS score at ten years was significantly higher in the OI group (78.2% ± 19.5) compared to the NOI group (48.3% ± 10.9) (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

PFMPs for NOI demonstrate a comparable risk of reoperation to OI, but with lower long-term functional outcomes.

The Megaendoprosthesis in Revision Arthroplasty - a Cost-revenue Analysis in the aG-DRG System

Megaendoprosthesis offer a viable treatment in complex revision arthroplasty cases with good functional outcome. In the context of a neoplastic indication, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) I95A is usually assigned with a relative weight of 4.906 (2021). In contrast, in revision arthroplasty, the appropriate DRG is assigned, depending on the joint replacement. The additional costs compared to the invoiced DRG are to be compensated by agreeing on hospital-specific individual fees. These complex revision arthroplasties set high technical and operative demands and are mainly performed in specialised departments. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the use of the megaendoprosthesis in revision cases in a specialised orthopaedic clinic, as a single centre study. The question we sought to answer was: Is cost recovery possible in the modified German DRG system (aG-DRG)?A retrospective single centre analysis of treatment costs was performed. From 2018 to 2020, 113 patients treated with a megaendoprosthesis reconstruction in a referral centre due to extensive bone loss after aseptic or septic revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were included in the study. Relevant case-related cost drivers of the aG-DRG matrix (including staff and material costs of the operating theatre area and the ward) were taken into account. The actual costs were determined according to the specifications of the calculation manual published by the German institute for the remuneration system in hospitals (InEK). For each case, the contribution margin was calculated by relating the hospital's internal costs to the corresponding cost pool of the aG-DRG matrix.According to the DRG system 2021, 17 different DRGs were used for billing - in 70% based on a patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) ≥ 4. Compared with the InEK calculation, there is a deficit of -2,901 € per case in the examined parameters. The costs of physicians show a shortfall in both the operating theatre and on the ward. Implant costs, which were supposed to be compensated by hospital-specific additional charges, show a hospital-specific shortage of -2,181 €. When analysing the risk factors for cost recovery, only these showed a significant difference.Implantation of the megaendoprosthesis in revision arthroplasty is often the last option to preserve limb function. At present, despite a high degree of specialisation and process optimisation, this treatment cannot be provided cost-effectively even in tertiary care. The politically desired specialised department structure requires sufficient reimbursement for complex cases. The economic outcome of each treatment case is often unpredictable, however the surgeon is confronted with these cases and is expected to treat them. The high standard deviation indicates large differences in the cost/revenue situation of each individual case. Our results show for the first time a realistic cost analysis for megaprosthesis in revision arthroplasty and underline the importance of an adequate hospital-specific charge, individually agreed by the funding units. The calculation should include not only the implant costs, but also the increased staff costs (increased, complex planning effort, quality management, surgery time, etc.).

Contemporary Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement as a Salvage Treatment in Nononcologic Severe Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Severe proximal femoral bone loss remains a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are salvage options for severe bone loss in complex rTHA. The purpose of this study was to describe the survivorship and clinical outcomes of PFR for nononcologic indications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 49 patients who underwent 50 PFRs from January 2014 to May 2021 at a single institution. Indications for PFR included periprosthetic femur fracture (n = 20), reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (n = 18), aseptic loosening with severe proximal femoral bone loss (n = 10), heterotopic ossification (n = 1), and instability (n = 1). The mean age was 70 years. The mean body mass index was 28 and 25 (50%) patients were women. The mean follow-up was three years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survivorship free from reoperation, rerevision, and dislocation.

RESULTS

The 2-year survivorship free from all-cause reoperation was 78%, and the 2-year survivorship free from rerevision was 87%. Overall, there were 11 (22%) reoperations, with indications including periprosthetic joint infection (n = 6), aseptic loosening (n = 2), hematoma evacuation (n = 1), instability (n = 1), and delayed wound healing (n = 1). There were eight (16%) patients who dislocated after PFR. The mean Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement increased from 48 preoperatively to 77 at two years postoperatively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of PFRs performed in complex rTHA, there was low 2-year survivorship free from all-cause reoperation (78%) and rerevision (87%). Furthermore, the dislocation rate was high at 16%. However, only one patient (2%) was revised for femoral component aseptic loosening. This study highlights the complexity of these patients and the utilization of PFR as a salvage option.

Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The use of long stems for severe femoral bone defects is suggested by many scholars, but it is associated with further bone loss, intraoperative fracture, increased surgical trauma, and complications. With better bone retention, simple and quick surgical procedures, and minimal complications, the short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape may be an alternative for femoral revision. This study aimed to evaluate the results of this type of stem in treating selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 73 patients (76 hips involved) who underwent conservative femoral revision using the short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape between January 2012 and December 2020. The preoperative femoral bone defects were identified as follows: 54 cases of type II, 11 cases of type IIIA, 7 cases of type IIIB, and 4 cases of type IV. Indications for revision included aseptic loosening (76.3%) and prosthetic joint infection (23.7%). Six cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape from three companies were used in all patients. Among them, SLR-Plus, SL-Plus MIA, and Corail stems were employed in most patients (40.8%, 23.7%, and 17.1%, respectively). The average length of these stems measured 171.7 mm (SD 27 mm; 122-215 mm). Radiographic results, Harris hip scores (HHS), complications, and survivorship were analyzed. The follow-up lasted for 7 years on average (range 3-11 years).

RESULTS

The subsidence was observed in three hips (3.9%), and all stems achieved stable bone ingrowth. Proximal femoral bone restoration in the residual osteolytic area was found in 67 hips (88.2%), constant defects in nine hips (11.8%), and increasing defects in 0 cases. There was no evidence of stem fractures and stem loosening in this series. The mean HHS significantly improved from 32 (range 15-50) preoperatively to 82 (range 68-94) at the last follow-up (t = - 36.297, P < 0.001). Five hips developed prosthesis-related complications, including three infection and two dislocation cases. The mean 5- and 10-year revision-free survivorships for any revision or removal of an implant and reoperation for any reason were 94.6% and 93.3%, respectively. Both mean 5- and 10-year revision-free survivorships for aseptic femoral loosening were 100%.

CONCLUSION

Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape can provide favorable radiographic outcomes, joint function, and mid-term survivorship with minimal complications. Of note, a sclerotic proximal femoral bone shell with continued and intact structure and enough support strength is the indication for using these stems.

Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.

Mouldable Collagen-Tricalciumphosphate Is a Safe Carrier for Local Antibiotics-Short-Term Results in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Improving local antibiotic delivery is a promising approach to improve infection control and potentially shorten systemic treatment in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study investigates the use of an antibiotic-loaded, mouldable collagen-tricalciumphosphate composite in treatment of hip PJI.

METHODS

124 application cases in 79 patients were included from a referral centre; systemic adverse infects, local complications, and infection control were analysed.

RESULTS

In most cases, either vancomycin or meropenem were used. Pathogens were previously known in 82 (66%) cases with polymicrobial infection in 20 (25%) patients. There were no cases of hypercalcaemia. Acute kidney injure was present in 14 (11%) cases. Chronic kidney failure persisted in two cases. During a mean follow-up of 12 (SD 9.3; range 3-35) months, implant survival was achieved in 73 (92%) patients; revision due to PJI was performed in 19 cases.

CONCLUSION

Mouldable collagen-tricalciumphosphate composite bone substitute as a local antibiotic carrier in revision hip arthroplasty appears to be a valid option for local antibiotic delivery without systemic complications. Implant survival of 92% supports the hypothesis that local antibiotic therapy is an important component in the treatment of PJI.

Megaprosthesis use in Paprosky III/IV femoral defects in non-oncological patients: analysis of survival, clinical, and functional outcomes after an average follow-up of five years

PURPOSE

To determine the survival and patient-reported outcomes in non-oncological patients treated with proximal femoral resection (PFR) using MEG for femoral reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 16 patients. Demographic variables and complications developed were analyzed. Clinical-functional outcomes were measured using the modified Harris score (mHSS), numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. MEG survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 5 years (range, 1-9). The 75% of patients were overweight and women with an average age of 74.2 ± 5.9-years (BMI of 28.5 ± 4.2 kg/m2). The main cause of MEG was periprosthetic infection (43.7%). The 50% of patients had post-surgical complications regarding with MEG, being the most frequent seromas and MEG dislocation. Implant survival was 93.4% and 80.9% at 3 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The functional results at the end of the follow-up with respect to the pre-surgical state improved from 9.5 ± 2.6 to 3 ± 0.9 mean NPRS and 26.5 ± 6.8 to 69.5 ± 13.5 mean mHHS, p < 0.001, respectively. The mean MSTS score was 68.1% that these results were considered excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The MEG for reconstruct III-IV femoral defects is a good therapeutic option that offers an acceptable clinical-functional result. Short-term and medium-term survival was greater than 80%. The most frequent complications are seromas and MEG dislocation. The use of constrained liner and abductor system reconstruction is essential to prevent the dislocation.

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.

Survival and Results after Resection and Reconstruction with Megaprosthesis at the Hip in Octogenarians

Few data are available about results after procedures of resection and megaprosthesis at the hip in very elderly patients. The aim of our study was to ascertain survival and complications in patients aged 80 or older undergoing these major orthopedic procedures. A consecutive series of 27 procedures in 26 patients aged 80-93 years was evaluated. In total, 15 procedures were performed due to oncological diseases, 6 were performed following joint arthroplasty failures or periprosthetic fractures, and 6 were performed after trauma or trauma sequelae. Survival of the patients ranged from 0 to 122 months. Overall survival was 56% at 3 years, 24% at 5 years, and 16% at 8 years. An early postoperative death during the first 3 months occurred in five patients (18.5%). The only preoperative parameter negatively affecting survival was preoperative hemoglobin lower than 11 g/dL. Local complications were similar to reported rates in all-age patients' series. In our experience, resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction can also be a valid choice in very elderly patients, with 56% of patients living more than two years from surgery and 24% more than five. Nevertheless, early postoperative deaths are frequent. A multidisciplinary evaluation of frailty of the patient must be accomplished, and patients and relatives must be informed about the risks of the procedure.

Factors Associated With Failure Following Proximal Femoral Replacement for Salvage Hip Surgery for Nononcologic Indications

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is used when extensive proximal femoral bone loss is encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. However, further data on 5-to-10-year survivorship and predictors of failure are needed. Our aim was to assess the survivorship of contemporary PFRs used for nononcologic indications and determine factors associated with failure.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective observational study was conducted between June 1, 2010 and August 31, 2021 for patients undergoing PFR for non-neoplastic indications. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. Demographic, operative, clinical, and radiographic data were collected. Implant survivorship was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis of 56 consecutive cemented PFRs in 50 patients.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 4 years, the mean Oxford Hip Score was 36.2 and patient satisfaction was rated at an average of 4.7 of 5 on the Likert scale. Radiographic evidence of femoral-sided aseptic loosening was determined in 2 PFRs at a median of 9.6 years. The 5-year survivorship with all-cause reoperation and revision as end points was 83.2% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 70.1% to 91.0%) and 84.9% (95% CI: 72.0% to 92.2%), respectively. The 5-year survivorship was 92.3% (95% CI: 78.0% to 97.5%) for stem length > 90 mm compared to 68.4% (95% CI: 39.5% to 85.7%) for stem length ≤ 90 mm. A construct-to-stem length ratio (CSR) ≤ 1 was associated with a 91.7% (95% CI: 76.4% to 97.2%) survival, while a CSR > 1 was associated with a 73.6% (95% CI: 47.4% to 88.1%) survival.

CONCLUSION

A PFR stem length ≤ 90 mm and CSR > 1 were associated with increased rates of failure.

Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities

In recent years, indications for implanting mega-implants were established in managing major bone defects linked to revision arthroplasty due to loosening, periprosthetic fractures, re-implantation following periprosthetic joint infection, non-union following fractures as well as complex intraarticular primary fractures. This study was conducted to discuss and analyze the strategy of diagnosis and management of complications following the use of mega-implants in treating primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. This is a monocentric retrospective study. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis due to periprosthetic or primary fractures of the lower extremity between January 2010 and February 2023 were identified from the authors' hospital information system. We identified 96 patients with equal numbers of fractures (71 periprosthetic fractures and 25 primary fractures). 90 cases out of 96 were investigated in this study. The drop-out rate was 6.25% (six cases). The average follow-up period was 22 months (1 to 8 years) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The diagnosis of complications was provided on the basis of subjective symptoms, clinical signs, radiological findings and laboratory investigations such as C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and the microbiological findings. The indications for implantations of modular mega-implants of the lower extremities were periprosthetic fractures (65 cases/72.22%) and primary fractures (25 cases/27.78%). Pathological fractures due to malignancy were encountered in 23 cases (25.56%), in one case due to primary tumor (1.11%) and 22 cases due to metastatic lesions (24.44%). Two cases (2.22%) presented with primary intraarticular fractures with severe osteoporosis and primary arthrosis. In all cases with malignancy staging was performed. Regarding localization, proximal femur replacement was encountered in 60 cases (66.67%), followed by distal femur replacement (28 cases/31.11%) and total femur replacement (2 cases/2.22%). The overall complication rate was 23.33% (21 complications in 21 patients). The most common complication was dislocation which was encountered in nine cases (10%), all following proximal femoral replacement (9 cases out of 60, making 15% of cases with proximal femoral replacement). The second most common complication was infection (six cases, 6.67%), followed by four aseptic loosenings (4.44%), further intraoperative periprosthetic fracture in one case (1.11%) and a broken implant in one case (1.11%). We noticed no cases with wear and tear of the polyethylene components and no cases of disconnections of the modular components. Mega-endoprostheses enable versatile management options in the treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. The rate of complications such as loosening, implant failure, dislocation and infection are within an acceptable range in this preliminary analysis. However, implantation of mega-endoprostheses must be strictly indicated due the limited salvage options following surgery.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Surgical Site Infection in Patients Managed with an Endoprosthesis for the Treatment of Cancer: Evaluation of Patient, Disease, and Index Surgical Factors

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) after segmental endoprosthetic reconstruction in patients treated for oncologic conditions remains both a devastating and a common complication. The goal of the present study was to identify variables associated with the success or failure of treatment of early SSI following the treatment of a primary bone tumor with use of a segmental endoprosthesis.

METHODS

The present study used the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) data set to identify patients who had been diagnosed with an SSI after undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction of a lower extremity primary bone tumor. The primary outcome of interest in the present study was a dichotomous variable: the success or failure of infection treatment. We defined failure as the inability to eradicate the infection, which we considered as an outcome of amputation or limb retention with chronic antibiotic suppression (>90 days or ongoing therapy at the conclusion of the study). Multivariable models were created with covariates of interest for each of the following: surgery characteristics, cancer treatment-related characteristics, and tumor characteristics. Multivariable testing included variables selected on the basis of known associations with infection or results of the univariable tests.

RESULTS

Of the 96 patients who were diagnosed with an SSI, 27 (28%) had successful eradication of the infection and 69 had treatment failure. Baseline and index procedure variables showing significant association with SSI treatment outcome were moderate/large amounts of fascial excision ≥1 cm2) (OR, 10.21 [95% CI, 2.65 to 46.21]; p = 0.001), use of local muscle/skin graft (OR,11.88 [95% CI, 1.83 to 245.83]; p = 0.031), and use of a deep Hemovac (OR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.85]; p = 0.041). In the final multivariable model, excision of fascia during primary tumor resection was the only variable with a significant association with treatment outcome (OR, 10.21 [95% CI, 2.65 to 46.21]; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this secondary analysis of the PARITY trial data provide further insight into the patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific associations with SSI treatment outcomes, which may help to inform decision-making and management of SSI in patients who have undergone segmental bone reconstruction of the femur or tibia for oncologic indications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Modular megaprostheses (MPs) are commonly used after bone-tumor resection, but they can offer a limb salvage solution in massive bone defects. The aim of this systematic review of the Literature is to provide a comprehensive data collection concerning the use of MPs in non-oncologic cases, and to provide an overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles, and further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on cases of MP in non-oncologic cases. A total of 2598 MPs were retrieved. Among these, 1353 (52.1%) were distal femur MPs, 941 (36.2%) were proximal femur MPs, 29 (1.4%) were proximal tibia MPs and 259 (10.0%) were total femur MPs. Megaprostheses were most commonly used to treat periprosthetic fractures (1158 cases, 44.6%), in particular in the distal femur (859, 74.2%). Overall, complications were observed in 513 cases (19.7%). Type I (soft tissue failures) and type IV (infection) according to the Henderson classification were the most frequent (158 and 213, respectively). In conclusion, patients with severe post-traumatic deformities and/or significant bone loss who have had previous septic complications should be considered as oncologic patients, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available. The benefits of this treatment include relatively short operative times and immediate weight-bearing, thus making MP particularly attractive in the lower limb.

The major proximal femoral defects: megaprosthesis in non oncological patients - A case series

We identified 39 patients (23 female and 16 male) underwent hip revisions through mega-prosthesis. The most common causes were periprosthetic fractures, periprosthetic osteolysis and consequences of infected arthroplasty. The average follow-up was 5 years (2.1 to 6.5), and average age was 69 years (47 to 78). At the final follow-up all the implants resulted functional and osteointegrated. The Merle D'Aubignè and Postel hip rating scale was used for the evaluation, better results were observed in periprosthetic fractures. Postoperative complications occurred in eight patients. Thus, megaprosthesis were a reasonable surgical option in the management of major femoral defects.

[Strategies for stem revision : Surgery planning, implant removal and reimplantation]

BACKGROUND AND PLANNING

Femoral revision represents a challenging procedure in its surgical planning and technical execution. The results are mainly dependent on the bone loss present, the quality of the implant removal and the choice of revision system. Patient-specific factors such as age, comorbidities, bone quality or even the localization of the cement have a decisive influence on the surgical strategy. Appropriate preoperative preparation, including the presence of the necessary special instruments, which are essential for gentle implant removal, is indispensable to achieve the best possible result.

THERAPY

A bone-sparing implant removal can be particularly challenging, especially in the case of well-fixed stems and cement residues, which may extend far beyond the isthmus. In such situations, a transfemoral approach should be considered. Cementless reimplantation using modular or non-modular titanium stems is currently the preferred treatment of choice for most revisions. In elderly, low-demand patients or with poor bone quality, cemented revision remains a good alternative treatment option.

Multi-stage treatment for malunion and avascular necrosis of the femoral head following reverse oblique pertrochanteric fracture: A case report and literature review

Femoral reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures are successfully treated using intramedullary devices. Poor fracture reduction and the use of the inaproppriate implant can lead to implant failure and subsequent malunion or non-union. We present the case of a 21-year-old polytrauma female who, among other injuries, sustained a reverse oblique intertrochanteric fracture that was primarily operated on with the dynamic hip screw. After implant failure the patient developed malunion with bone defect and avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Successful salvage of the bone stock in the inter- and subtrochanteric region was achieved using the two-stage induced membrane technique. The uncemented total hip arthroplasty was performed to address the osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Modern Proximal Femoral Replacement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Nononcologic Indications

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgical technique and prosthesis design have expanded the non-neoplastic indications for proximal femoral replacement (PFR) to include fracture nonunion, periprosthetic fracture, and severe bone loss in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to assess outcomes of PFRs used for nononcologic indications.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective, cohort survey study was conducted between August 2015-February 2020 of consecutive patients undergoing PFR for nononcologic indications in revision THA. Patient demographics, surgical variables, complications, and revision procedures were collected. Patient satisfaction and Oxford Hip scores were assessed via a telephone questionnaire. Implant survivorship was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In total, 24 patients (27 PFRs) were available for analysis with an average age of 69.3 ± 12.9 years (range: 37-90). The average number of operations prior to PFR implantation was 3.1 ± 2.1 (range: 0-7). At a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range: 0.5-5.1), the mean Oxford Hip Score was 31.7 ± 10.2, and mean patient satisfaction was 4.9/5. Six patients (20.7%) experienced a postoperative complication, with dislocation occurring in three patients (10.3%). None of the patients with dual mobility articulations (n = 4) had dislocation. Three-year survivorship was 85.2% (95% CI 71.8%-98.6%) with all-cause reoperations as the endpoint and 100% (95% CI 100.0%-100.0%) with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates excellent short-term survivorship, satisfactory patient-reported outcomes, and high patient satisfaction following PFR for nononcologic indications during revision THA utilizing modern techniques. The most common mode of failure was dislocation requiring reoperation with revision to constrained acetabular components.

Dual-mobility bearings in complex revision hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is associated with an increased dislocation risk. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been used to address this issue. Such constructs offer increased range of motion and enhanced stability whilst avoiding some issues associated with fully-constrained devices. DM bearings have been used in our unit since 2013.

METHODS

All rTHA cases since 2013 were reviewed using the following criteria: (1) use of a DM bearing; (2) extensive soft tissue or bone loss resulting from ARMD, infection or multiple revisions, or requiring custom or megaprosthetic reconstruction; (3) minimum 2-month follow-up.

RESULTS

52 cases were identified with a median of 2 previous operations (range 1-6) and mean follow-up of 14 (2-41) months. The Novae-Stick component was used in 50 cases, the Avantage in 2 and the Trident MDM in 1 case. 19 required acetabular reconstruction using trabecular metal and four required custom acetabular components. 19 required femoral reconstruction with a proximal or total femoral replacement.Postoperatively, 8 patients (15.4%) sustained a dislocation at a mean of 1.6 (range 1-3) months. 3 (5.8%) requiring re-revision. 1 required excision arthroplasty and 2 a constrained liner, 1 of which went on to have further instability. There were no intraprosthetic dislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-mobility components are a viable option in the complex rTHA setting. Early dislocations can occur but the rate of instability is acceptable in this high-risk group.

Proximal femoral replacement using the direct anterior approach to the hip

OBJECTIVE

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a salvage procedure originally developed for reconstruction after resection of sarcomas and metastatic cancer. These techniques can also be adapted for the treatment of non-oncologic reconstruction for cases involving massive proximal bone loss. The direct anterior approach (DAA) is readily utilized for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there have been few reports of its use for proximal femoral replacement.

INDICATIONS

Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, periprosthetic femoral fracture, oncologic lesions of the proximal femur. The most common indication for non-oncologic proximal femoral placement is a severe femoral defect Paprosky IIIB or IV.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Infection.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

In contrast to conventional DAA approaches and extensions, we recommend starting the approach 3 cm lateral to the anterior superior iliac spine and performing a straight incision directed towards the fibular head. After identification and incision of the tensor fasciae lata proximally and the lateral mobilization of the iliotibial tract distally, the vastus lateralis muscle can be retracted medially as far as needed. Special care should be taken to avoid injuries to the branches of the femoral nerve innervating the vastus lateralis muscle. If required, the distal extension of the DAA can continue all the way to the knee to allow implantation of a total femoral replacement. The level of the femoral resection is detected with an x‑ray. In accordance with preoperative planning, the proximal femur is resected. Ream and broach the distal femoral fragment to the femoral canal. With trial implants in place, leg length, anteversion of the implant and hip stability are evaluated. It is crucial to provide robust reattachment of the abductor muscles to the PFR prosthesis. Mesh reinforcement can be used to reinforce the muscular attachment if necessary.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

We typically use no hip precautions other than to limit combined external rotation and extension for 6 weeks. In most cases, full weight bearing is possible after surgery.

RESULTS

A PFR was performed in 16 patients (mean age: 55.1 years; range 17-84 years) using an extension of the DAA. The indication was primary bone sarcoma in 7 patients, metastatic lesion in 6 patients and massive periprosthetic femoral bone loss in 3 patients. Complications related to the surgery occurred in 2 patients (both were dislocation). Overall, 1 patient required reoperation and 1 patient died because of his disease. Mean follow-up was 34.5 months.

Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement Is Associated With Risk of Failure

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is reserved as a salvage procedure after failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) or after wide margin resection of tumors involving the proximal femur. Although failure of the PFR construct remains a significant problem, indication has not previously been investigated as a risk factor for failure.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent PFR over a consecutive 15-year period for primary sarcoma or metastatic disease of the proximal femur, compared with conversion to PFR after failed THA. PFR failure was defined as recurrent prosthetic dislocations, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or infection that ultimately resulted in revision surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 99 patients were evaluated, including 58 in the neoplasm and 41 in the failed THA cohorts. Failed THA patients were older (P < .001), with a greater proportion having comorbid hypertension (P = .008), cardiac disease (P = .014), and history of prior ipsilateral and intracapsular surgeries (P < .001). The failure rate was significantly higher in failed THA patients (39.0% vs 10.3%; P < .001) with significantly shorter implant survivorship on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .003). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that THA failure was the only independent predictor for PFR failure (hazard ratio: 4.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.66-10.94; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed significantly worse PFR implant survivorship in patients undergoing PFR for the indication of failed THA compared with neoplasm. Although the underlying etiology of this relationship remains to be explicitly outlined, poor bone quality and soft tissue integrity, multiple prior surgeries, and comorbid conditions are likely contributing factors.

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

INTRODUCTION

Reconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs.

HYPOTHESIS

The use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26-94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%).

RESULTS

Eighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2-10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58-82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85-98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26-100] at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort.

Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a well-established treatment for neoplasia of the proximal femur. The use of this surgical technique for non-neoplastic conditions has increased over the years. We carried out a systematic review of the literature to study the indications, complications, and functional results when PFR is used for non-neoplastic conditions. Twenty-seven studies were included in the review with a total of 828 PFRs with a mean follow-up of 50 months (range 1-225 months). The main indications were infection (28%), periprosthetic fracture (27%), aseptic loosening (22%), and fracture (16%). The rate of reoperation was 20.3% overall. The overall revision rate was 15.4%. The main complications were dislocation (10.2%) and infection (7.3%). After 2010, the rates of reoperation (25.5% versus 18.2%), loosening (9.4% versus 3.2%), and dislocation (15.7% versus 7.9%) were lower than before 2010. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%. The hip function scores improved post-surgery. In conclusion, the use of PFR in non-neoplastic conditions remains a marginal tool, associated with low direct mortality and high complication rates, but we expect its use to increase in the near future.

Revision arthroplasty with megaprosthesis after Girdlestone procedure for periprosthetic joint infection as an option in massive acetabular and femoral bone defects

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with Girdlestone procedure (GP) or excision arthroplasty (EA) for periprosthetic infection with massive bone defects and undergoing revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

All patients treated with EA or GP for hip periprosthetic infection between 2014 and 2017 and sustaining revision arthroplasty (RA) were included in the study. Patients with less than 24 months of follow-up or less than 12 months between GP or EA and RA were excluded. Any sign of implant mobilization or periprosthetic fracture was assessed through X-ray. Patients were evaluated with D'aubignè-Postel hip score before RA and at the last follow-up. Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess differences between pre-RA surgery and last follow-up. P value was set as <0.05.

RESULTS

Twelve patients meet the inclusion criteria (mean follow-up 58+/-9.72 months). No radiographic sign of implant mobilization or periprosthetic fracture was reported. A significant difference was found for each parameter of the D'Aubigne-Postel score (p < 0.0001); none of the patients reached more than fair results in the absolute hip score. The difference between pre and post-operative global status showed a fair improvement. A significant difference was found for leg length discrepancy between pre and post RA (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from EA or GP to RA in patients suffering from massive acetabular and femur defects is challenging; conversion procedure is able to reduce patients' disability and to improve walking ability. (www.actabiomedica.it).

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.

RESULTS

Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.

CONCLUSION

PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

Methods

A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS).

Results

At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years.

Conclusion

Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235.

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.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of combined modular prothesis and cortical strut for revision proximal femur in giant cell tumor of bone patients

BACKGROUND

Femoral bone deficiency is a challenging problem in revision proximal femoral replacement. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision proximal femoral replacement as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after oncologic proximal replacement surgery in patient with benign giant cell tumor of bone.

METHODS

16 patients (6 men and 10 women) were included in this retrospective study, with a mean age of 46.6 year at the time of revision surgery. All patients underwent revision proximal femoral replacement with the use of modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts. The modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 36, and musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score were used for patient evaluation. Regular follow-up was performed to evaluate the recurrence and metastases rate, limb function, and long-term complications of patients.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 46.3 months (range, 26-75 months), during which there was no local recurrence and metastases of patient. At the latest follow-up, the mean modified Harris Hip Score was 70.6 points, which was significantly improved compared with that of preoperative (p < 0.05). The final follow-up results of Short Form 36, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score, and limb-length discrepancy were also significantly improved compared to that of preoperative (p < 0.05). At the latest follow-up, the implanted femoral stems were all stable and all cortical strut allografts were also incorporated to their own bone.

CONCLUSION

Using modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts in revision, proximal femur replacement is an acceptable procedure for relatively young patient with severe proximal femoral bone loss after oncologic surgery with benign giant cell tumor of bone. More attentions should be paid to reduce the risk of complications in these complex reconstructions.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.

RESULTS

In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.

CONCLUSION

PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

Resection of the proximal femur during one-stage revision for infected hip arthroplasty : risk factors and effectiveness

AIMS

One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions.

METHODS

In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years' time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions.

CONCLUSION

Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678-1685.

Different outcomes after proximal femoral replacement in oncologic and failed revision arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a technically demanding procedure commonly performed to restore extensive, oncological or non-oncological bone defects in a severely debilitated patient collective. Depending on different indications, a varying outcome has been reported. The aim of the study was to assess the functional outcomes and complication rates of PFR with the modular Munich-Luebeck (MML) femoral megaprosthesis (ESKA/Orthodynamics, Luebeck, Germany), and to highlight outcome differences in patients treated for failed revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) or malignant bone disease.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients treated with PFR for failed THA or malignant tumor disease between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome (VAS, SF-12, MSTS, WOMAC, TESS), complications and failure types (Henderson’s failure classification) were assessed. A Kaplan-Meier analysis determined implant survival.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (age: 69.9 years, BMI: 26.7 kg/m², mean follow-up: 66 months) were included. The mean SF-12 (physical / mental) was 37.9 / 48.4. MSTS averaged 68% at final follow-up, while mean WOMAC and TESS scored 37.8 and 59.5. TESS and WOMAC scores demonstrated significantly worse outcomes in the revision group (RG) compared to the tumor group (TG). Overall complication rate was 43.1%, and dislocation was the most common complication (27.6%). Implant survival rates were 83% (RG) and 85% (TG; p = n.s.) at 5 years, while 10-year survival was 57% (RG) and 85% (TG, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PFR is a salvage procedure for restoration of mechanical integrity and limb preservation after extensive bone loss. Complications rates are considerably high.

Functional outcomes and 10-year implant survival rate were worse in the RG compared to the TG. Strict indications and disease-specific patient education are essential in preoperative planning and prognosis.

Novel Cemented Technique for Trochanteric Fixation and Reconstruction of the Abductor Mechanism in Proximal and Total Femoral Arthroplasty: An Observational Study

Background

Little evidence exists regarding the clinical outcomes of cemented trochanteric fixation for abductor mechanism reconstruction in proximal or total femoral replacements. Clinical outcomes were assessed for a novel cemented technique for trochanteric fixation in femoral megaprostheses.

Methods

A descriptive series of 13 patients who underwent proximal or total femoral arthroplasty from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed. Radiographic trochanteric displacement >1 cm defined construct failure. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine survival rates for these cemented constructs. Demographic information was obtained to better characterize the patient population in whom this technique was used.

Results

Eleven patients were included (age = 63.6 years; 45.4% females; body mass index = 31.7). Mean time to final radiographic follow-up was 73.8 weeks. Three of 11 (27.2%) patients had construct failure. Overall, survival at 1 year was 81.8%. At 2 years, survival of cemented constructs was 65.5%. More construct failures occurred in patients who sustained a postoperative dislocation than in those who did not (P = .05).

Conclusions

This novel cemented trochanteric fixation technique for reconstruction of the abductor mechanism in femoral megaprostheses had 81.8% survival at 1 year postoperatively. While longitudinal comparative studies with larger samples are needed, the cemented technique may provide a viable alternative to traditional cementless methods of trochanteric fixation. Increased construct failure rates after postoperative dislocation highlight the importance of robust abductor reconstruction in these implants.

Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty

Megaprostheses as a means of limb salvage originated in orthopaedic oncology, and implant evolution was initially driven by developments within this field. Improvements in imaging modalities and in chemotherapeutics prolonged patient survival and promoted a transformation in the surgeon's mentality from salvage operation to functional limb reconstruction. As primary arthroplasty operations became more popular, megaprostheses found new utility in hip and knee revision arthroplasty. In this capacity, these implants provided much needed alternatives to traditional arthroplasty revision options for addressing massive bone loss and complex periprosthetic fractures. The indications for megaprostheses continue to expand with advances in design, stability, and overall longevity. Thus, greater numbers of orthopaedic surgeons in arthroplasty and traumatology have to be familiar with this technology. Importantly, each anatomic location presents unique considerations for reconstruction; however, additional variables such as the quantity of bone loss, the quality of remaining bone stock, and fracture type also influence implant selection. Ultimately, there is still much to be optimized in the use of megaprostheses for hip and knee revision arthroplasty. High multifactorial complication and revision surgery rates compared with conventional prostheses make these implants for many a "last resort" option.

Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients

Introduction

Multiple revision hip arthroplasties and critical trauma might cause severe bone loss that requires proximal femoral replacement (PFR). The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse complication- and revision-free survivals of patients who received modular megaprostheses in an attempt to reconstruct massive non-neoplastic bone defects of the proximal femur.

Questions/purposes

(1) What were general complication rates and revision-free survivals following PFR? (2) What is the incidence of complication specific survivals? (3) What were risk factors leading to a diminished PFR survival?

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight patients with sufficient follow-up after receiving a modular proximal femoral megaprosthesis were identified. The indications for PFR included prosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, non-union and critical femoral fracture. Complications were grouped according to the ISOLS-classification of segmental endoprosthetic failure by Henderson et al.

Results

Overall, the complication-free survival was 64.3% at one year, 43.2% at five years and 38.4% at ten years, with 16 patients (57%) suffering at least one complication. Complications were dislocation in eight patients (29%), PJI in 6 patients (21%), periprosthetic fracture in five patients (18%), and aseptic loosening in six patients (21%). Prosthesis stem cementation showed a lower risk for revision in a cox proportional hazard model (95% CI 0.04–0.93, HR 0.2, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

PFR with modular megaprostheses represents a viable last resort treatment with high complication rates for patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss due to failed arthroplasty or critical fractures. In revision arthroplasty settings, PFR cementation should be advocated in cases of impaired bone quality.

Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis

Background

The procedure of femoral stem revision is challenging, and bone conservation with less stress shielding is a mandatory effort in these cases. Although there are several reports of stem revision with stems designed for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no report on stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis.

Methods

Between 1996 and 2008, 41 hips of 41 consecutive patients were subjected to femoral revision THA using the Wagner cone prosthesis. The mean age during revision surgery was 56.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 years. The clinical results were evaluated, and the femoral component was assessed radiologically.

Results

The results showed that the average period from the first operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. Additionally, the mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 83 points at the final follow-up. All stems showed bone integration in the radiological evaluation. A subsidence of more than 5 mm was observed in 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems. Two patients needed an acetabular revision for acetabular cup loosening during the follow-up period. Furthermore, one patient had recurrent dislocation and had to undergo revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation.

Conclusions

We achieved favorable clinical and radiological long-term outcomes in femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem could be an option for femoral stem revision in cases with relatively good bone stock.

Modular megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur

Background

Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur remain challenging, especially in patients with previous multiple revisions. Modular megaprostheses (mMPs) are rarely used in this indication; however, in some cases mMPs seem to be the last chance for limb salvage. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of PPFs of the femur treated by modular mMPs at our institution.

Patients and methods

In this study 33 patients (27 female; mean age 79 years) with a PPF after total hip or total knee arthroplasty (no tumor indications) were treated using modular proximal (mPFR; n = 12), distal (mDFR; n = 14) or total (mTFR; n = 7) femur replacement. A retrospective evaluation regarding mortality and revision rates was performed. Failures with need for revision were classified.

Results

At a mean follow up of 60 months (range 0–178 months), the total mortality rate as well as total revision rate were both found to be 39%. At 1 year follow-up the mortality rate was highest within the mDFR group, and less revisions were necessary in the mPFR group, however both findings were not significantly. Those patients, who had revision surgery before PPF, were found to have higher revision rate after implantation of mMP. In the mPFR group, dislocation was the most frequent failure, within the mDFR and the mTFR group infection. In one case amputation of the lower limb was necessary.

Conclusion

mMPs represent a valuable option in PPFs of the femur. Infection and dislocation remain the most frequent complications. Prospective clinical studies are required to further define the outcome of mMPs in PPFs of the femur.

Interlocking reconstruction-mode stem-sideplates preserve at-risk hips with short residual proximal femora

AIMS

We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.

METHODS

A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs.

RESULTS

All 14 at-risk native hip joints were preserved at a mean final follow-up of 6.0 years (SD 3.7), despite a short residual femur, often after proximal osteotomies through the lesser trochanter. Overall, 13 of 14 stems had long-term successful fixation. Eight patients required no reoperation. Three patients required reoperation due to implant-related issues, and three patients required reoperation for wound healing problems or infection. There were no dislocations or fractures. At final follow-up the mean MSTS score was 24.9 (SD 4.1). Nine patients required no ambulation aids, and only one had a Trendelenburg gait.

CONCLUSION

This interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate reliably preserves native hip joint anatomy and function after large femoral resection with a short remaining proximal femur, both in the primary and revision setting. This is particularly important for preventing or delaying total femoral arthroplasty in young patients after oncological reconstruction. Hip abductor strength and function could be maintained by this method, and the risk of dislocation eliminated. The success of this technique in this modest series should be verified in a larger collaborative study and will be of interest to revision surgeons and oncologists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):398-404.

"Purse-String" Capsular Closure for Decreasing Dislocation Rates in Proximal Femur Replacements

Hip joint dislocation is the most common complication after a proximal femur replacement. As the utilization of proximal femur replacements continues to increase, it becomes imperative for surgeons to find the optimal method to decrease postoperative dislocation and its sequelae. These cases often involve extensive soft-tissue deficits that require reconstruction to provide postoperative strength and stability. Patients report good functional outcomes; however, dislocation remains a concern. Although “described” previously in the literature, the authors illustrate the “purse-string” hip joint capsular closure technique to help other surgeons understand it and apply to their practice as deemed necessary. We also present the senior author's results with using a modified version of the “purse-string” hip joint capsular closure technique.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.

A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.

Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.

Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.

Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

Radiographic, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes of Cemented Modular Proximal Femur Replacement Using the "French Paradox" Technique

BACKGROUND

Endoprostheses are frequently used in the management of tumors involving the proximal femur. Aseptic loosening is a common complication that has been linked to the cementing technique. The "French paradox" is well-known cementing technique in the arthroplasty literature. No previous reports have assessed loosening in proximal femur replacements using this technique. We examined rates of femoral stem aseptic loosening in proximal femur replacements, functional outcomes, complications, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 47 patients who underwent proximal femur replacement between 2000 and 2019. Two reviewers evaluated preoperative and postoperative radiographs using the International Society of Limb Salvage scoring system and Barrack criteria for stem loosening. The acetabulum was evaluated according to the criteria of Baker et al. Functional outcomes were assessed using Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score. The mean follow-up was 44 months.

RESULTS

The mean International Society of Limb Salvage scores for the 2 reviewers were 86% ± 6% and 84% ± 6%. The first reviewer graded femoral stem loosening as "possibly loose" in 2 patients, one of whom was graded as possibly loose by the second reviewer. The 2 reviewers found no acetabular erosion in 16 (70%) and 15 (65.4%) patients, respectively. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score at last follow-up were 61% and 72%, respectively. Twenty complications occurred in 13 patients, and 5 patients experienced local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Despite complications, we showed favorable femoral component survival rates. Cementing the proximal femur prosthesis with tight canal fit and thin cement mantle is a viable option for the short and medium term.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Non-neoplastic indications and outcomes of the proximal and distal femur megaprosthesis: a critical review

Purpose

Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints.

Methods

We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms ‘proximal femur replacement’ or ‘distal femur replacement’ and ‘hip or knee megaprosthesis.’ The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated.

Result

We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis.

Conclusion

Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.

Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts

Background

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe femoral bone defects remains a major challenge. The purpose of this study is to report the minimum 8-year clinical and radiographic results of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects treated with extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 44 patients diagnosed with Paprosky type III and IV femoral bone defects between January 2006 and July 2011. The exclusion criteria were patients not eligible for surgery, revised with extensively porous-coated stems alone, lost to follow-up and deceased. A total of 31 patients treated with extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts were finally included in this study. The degree of femoral bone defects was categorized as Paprosky type IIIA in 19 patients, type IIIB in 9 patients and type IV in 3 patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 11.0 ± 1.5 (range, 8.1–13.5) years.

Results

The mean Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 43.4 ± 10.5 points to 85.2 ± 6.6 points (P < 0.001). Similarly, WOMAC and SF-12 scores also significantly improved. Twenty-eight stems achieved stable bone ingrowth, two stems showed stable fibrous ingrowth, and one stem was radiologically unstable. Complete union and bridging between cortical strut allografts and host bone was achieved in all 31 patients. The femoral width was augmented with cortical strut allografts after revision surgery (an increase of 10.5 ± 0.5 mm) and showed a slight decrease of 2.5 ± 4.8 mm after the 10-year follow-up. Using re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate of the stem was 96.2% (95% confidence interval, 75.7–99.5%) at 10 years.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that the use of extensively porous-coated stems combined with cortical strut allografts in revision THA with Paprosky type III and IV femoral bone defects can provide satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 8 years.

Cemented Proximal Femoral Replacement for the Management of Non-Neoplastic Conditions: A Versatile Implant but Not Without Its Risks

BACKGROUND

The demand for revision arthroplasty continues to grow. Proximal femoral bone loss poses a significant challenge to surgeons and proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are one option to address this problem. The aim of our study is to assess the reoperation, complication, and mortality rates following PFR for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive group of patients treated with a PFR for non-neoplastic conditions between 2010 and 2018. Mortality was confirmed using the Irish national death events publication service.

RESULTS

Over the 8-year study period, 79 PFRs in 78 patients were performed. Mean age of patients was 78.3 years (standard deviation 11.9), of which 37.2% were male. Periprosthetic fracture was the most common indication for PFR (63.3%). The 30-day mortality rate was 7.6% (6 patients), of which bone cement implantation syndrome occurred in 4 patients. One-year mortality was 12.7%. Complications occurred in 22.8%.

CONCLUSION

A cemented PFR is a versatile prosthesis in the armamentarium of a revision arthroplasty surgeon that allows immediate full weight-bearing. However, it may appropriately be considered a last resort procedure that poses specific risks that must be explained to patients and family. We present the short-term outcomes on one of the largest series of PFR to date.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29-90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2-10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81-261). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.

Vancouver B3 Fractures: Treatment Options and Tips

The incidence of periprosthetic fracture around hip arthroplasty has increased with the rise of total hip arthroplasty. These fractures are challenging to treat and often require revision of the femoral prosthesis. Vancouver B3 fractures are particularly difficult to treat because of extensive bone loss and limited options. A revised stable femoral component requires distal femoral fixation. Most cases can be performed with a tapered component or a long-stem fully coated prosthesis. Femoral allograft composite and proximal femoral replacement has been recommended for Vancouver B3 fractures with extremely poor bone stock but is rarely performed today. We present our surgical technique, as well as pearls and pitfalls in treating Vancouver B3 fractures with a loose prosthesis and proximal bone loss.

Two-Stage Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection Is Associated with a High Rate of Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange is the most common form of treatment of chronic infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We examined the prevalence of, and risk factors associated with, hip instability following 2-stage exchange as well as the fate of reimplanted hip prostheses that dislocated.

METHODS

Data on 515 2-stage exchange THAs performed between 2000 and 2014 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Risk factors for instability as well as postoperative reoperations and revisions were analyzed. The impact of dislocation on these outcomes was evaluated as well. The mean age at the time of reimplantation was 65 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 15 years).

RESULTS

Dislocation occurred in 52 hips following reimplantation (cumulative probability = 8.9% at 1 year). There was a higher risk of instability in women (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, p = 0.038) and in those who had a history of dislocation prior to the 2-stage revision (HR = 5.1, p < 0.001). Younger age, body mass index, number of previous operations, spacer type, surgical approach, use of a constrained liner, femoral head diameter, and persistent or recurrent infection were not found to be significant risk factors. Patients with an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency also had a higher rate of dislocation (HR = 30, p < 0.001), as did patients who underwent reimplantation with a megaprosthesis (HR = 6.0, p < 0.001). The risk of additional reoperations (HR = 121, p < 0.001) and revision surgery (HR = 13, p < 0.001) was significantly higher in patients who experienced a dislocation after the 2-stage exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation after 2-stage exchange THA continues to be a major concern, with the 1-year cumulative probability found to be 9% in the present study. Female sex, a history of dislocation, an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency, and reimplantation with a megaprosthesis were identified as risk factors for dislocation. There is a remarkable 121-fold increase in the rate of reoperations and a 13-fold increase in the rate of revisions in hips that dislocated after 2-stage exchange THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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