Mixing of components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty: prevalence and comparative outcomes

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

Risk factors for a radiolucent line around the acetabular component with an interface bioactive bone cement technique after primary cemented total hip arthroplasty

Aims

The main aims were to identify risk factors predictive of a radiolucent line (RLL) around the acetabular component with an interface bioactive bone cement (IBBC) technique in the first year after THA, and evaluate whether these risk factors influence the development of RLLs at five and ten years after THA.

Methods

A retrospective review was undertaken of 980 primary cemented THAs in 876 patients using cemented acetabular components with the IBBC technique. The outcome variable was any RLLs that could be observed around the acetabular component at the first year after THA. Univariate analyses with univariate logistic regression and multivariate analyses with exact logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for any RLLs based on radiological classification of hip osteoarthritis.

Results

RLLs were detected in 27.2% of patients one year postoperatively. In multivariate regression analysis controlling for confounders, atrophic osteoarthritis (odds ratio (OR) 2.17 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 4.49); p = 0.038) and 26 mm (OR 3.23 (95% CI 1.85 to 5.66); p < 0.001) or 28 mm head diameter (OR 3.64 (95% CI 2.07 to 6.41); p < 0.001) had a significantly greater risk for any RLLs one year after surgery. Structural bone graft (OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.29) p < 0.001) and location of the hip centre within the true acetabular region (OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.24); p < 0.001) were significantly less prognostic. Improvement of the cement-bone interface including complete disappearance and poorly defined RLLs was identified in 15.1% of patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the acetabular component at ten years with revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening as the end point was 100.0% with a RLL and 99.1% without a RLL (95% CI 97.9 to 100). With revision of the acetabular component for any reason as the end point, the survival rate was 99.2% with a RLL (95% CI 97.6 to 100) and 96.5% without a RLL (95% CI 93.4 to 99.7).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that acetabular bone quality, head diameter, structural bone graft, and hip centre position may influence the presence of the any RLL.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(5):278–292.

Medico-Legal Issues Related to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Literature Review Including the Indian Scenario

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are commonly performed surgeries worldwide. The number of joint replacement surgeries being performed has increased considerably over the past two decades, but it has also seen an increase in litigation associated with it. The purpose of our study was to review and consolidate literature regarding medico-legal issues pertaining to THA and TKA cases. We looked at the causes of litigation, medico legal aspects of pre-operative requirements, optimisation of medical condition, indications and contraindications for arthroplasty, informed consent, implants, mixing of components from different manufacturers and post-operative rehabilitation. We also wanted to analyse available literature and legal proceedings regarding these cases in India specifically.

Femoral prosthesis neck fracture following total hip arthroplasty - a systematic review

PURPOSE

Head-neck modularity was introduced into total hip arthroplasty to provide more intraoperative surgical options. However, modularity led to new problems, such as trunnionosis and fractures of the femoral prosthesis neck. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for hip neck fractures and to provide recommendations to prevent damage and fractures of the neck.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-three case studies were included. Methodologically, most included studies were of moderate or good quality. The 80 neck fractures included in the review took place, on average, 7 years after stem placement. Male gender, high body weight, obesity, previous revision surgery, mixing components from different manufacturers, use of long skirted heads, cobalt-chromium (large size) heads were identified as potential risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Hip neck fractures occur on average 7 years after stem placement. The etiology of hip neck fractures is multifactorial. This review revealed several preventable implant- and surgeon-related risk factors.

Long-term outcome after revision of hip arthroplasty with the BioBall® adapter system in multimorbid patients

Introduction

Long-term study evidence about the BioBall® adapter system is limited, especially in highly morbid elderly patients. Thus, we analysed the long-term outcome of revision hip arthroplasty using this system in highly morbid elderly patients.

Materials and methods

We included 19 patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty after primary or secondary total hip arthroplasty dislocations between July 2002 and August 2004 and followed up their long-term outcome until 2015.

Results

The patients achieved a median of 17 points in the Merle d'Aubigné hip score in 2004 and a median of 18 points in 2011, and the 4 surviving patients in 2015 achieved 18 points. For the four 12-year survivors, the Merle d'Aubigné score was virtually stable over the complete observation period. The Harris Hip Score showed comparable results. The patients had a median Barthel index of 90 in 2004 and 100 in 2011, and the 4 survivors in 2015 had Barthel indices of 65, 95, 100, and 100, respectively, in 2015.

Conclusions

In multimorbid patients, using the BioBall® adapter system for total hip arthroplasty, revision due to dislocation results in good long-term outcome without impairment of quality of life.

Translational potential

Our study provides long-term evidence in a vulnerable patient population. It shows how the therapeutic concept of revision hip replacement with an adapter device translates into long-term outcome and quality of life in these patients. Thus, it adds important information for evaluation of therapeutic options in this field.

Corrosion of the Head-Stem Taper Junction-Are We on the Verge of an Epidemic?: Review Article

BACKGROUND

The modular head taper junction has contributed to the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA) greatly. Taper corrosion and wear problems reported for large and extra-large metal-on-metal bearings as well as for bi-modular THA stems have cast doubt on the benefit of the taper interface. Presently, corrosion problems are being reported for nearly all kinds of artificial hip joints incorporating metal heads, questioning taper connections in general.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This study aimed to review the mechanical and electrochemical relationships that may lead to taper corrosion, which have been reported more commonly in recent literature, and to also review the contribution of patient characteristics and surgical techniques involved in taper assembly that may contribute to the problem.

METHODS

The search criteria "(corrosion) AND (hip arthroplasty) AND (taper OR trunnion)" and "(hip arthroplasty) AND ((pseudotumor) OR (pseudo-tumor))" in PubMed and the JAAOS were used for the literature search. In addition, the arthroplasty registers were considered.

RESULTS

Most studies acknowledge the multifactorial nature of the problem but concentrate their analysis on taper and implant design aspects, since this is the only factor that can be easily quantified. The sometimes conflicting results in the literature could be due to the fact that the other two decisive factors are not sufficiently considered: the loading situation in the patient and the assembly situation by the surgeon. All three factors together determine the fate of a taper junction in THA. There is no single reason as a main cause for taper corrosion. The combined "outcome" of these three factors has to be in a "safe range" to achieve a successful long-term taper fixation.

CONCLUSION

No, this is not the beginning of an epidemic. It is rather the consequence of disregarding known mechanical and electrochemical relationships, which in combination have recently caused a more frequent occurrence-and mainly reporting-of corrosion issues.

Nationwide review of mixed and non-mixed components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose - Combining components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is common practice worldwide. We determined the proportion of THAs used in the Netherlands that consist of components from different manufacturers, and compared the revision rates of these mixed THAs with those of non-mixed THAs. Patients and methods - Data on primary and revision hip arthroplasty are recorded in the LROI, the nationwide population-based arthroplasty register in the Netherlands. We selected all 163,360 primary THAs that were performed in the period 2007-2014. Based on the manufacturers of the components, 4 groups were discerned: non-mixed THAs with components from the same manufacturer (n = 142,964); mixed stem-head THAs with different manufacturers for the femoral stem and head (n = 3,663); mixed head-cup THAs with different head and cup manufacturers (n = 12,960), and mixed stem-head-cup THAs with different femoral stem, head, and cup manufacturers (n = 1,773). Mixed prostheses were defined as THAs (stem, head, and cup) composed of components made by different manufacturers. Results - 11% of THAs had mixed components (n = 18,396). The 6-year revision rates were similar for mixed and non-mixed THAs: 3.4% (95% CI: 3.1w-3.7) for mixed THAs and 3.5% (95% CI: 3.4-3.7) for non-mixed THAs. Revision of primary THAs due to loosening of the acetabulum was more common in mixed THAs (16% vs. 12%). Interpretation - Over an 8-year period in the Netherlands, 11% of THAs had mixed components-with similar medium-term revision rates to those of non-mixed THAs.