Hip socket wear due to component mismatch. A case report

Survival rate of total hip replacements with matched and with mixed components with 10.7 years mean follow-up

BACKGROUND

Mixing and matching components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty is a frequently used off-label praxis. The clinical consequences of this procedure have not been studied in detail.

METHODS

860 patients with matched and 1067 patients with mixed primary total hip replacement (THR) components carried out between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2004, were selected from our Institution registry. The analysis endpoint was set at 1 January 2016. THRs with poorly performing components were excluded from study groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for both groups were calculated and compared using the Log-Rank test and the demographic data using the chi-square test. Correlations between demographic data and revisions were calculated using bivariate correlation.

RESULTS

28 revisions were carried out in the matched group and 67 in the mixed group. The 14-year overall survival probability was significantly better in the former (96.0%) than in the mixed group (92.7%) (p = 0.002). Survival, free of aseptic and septic failures, was statistically, significantly higher in the matched group (p = 0.026 and p = 0.007, respectively).The survival of the mixed subgroup with heads and stems from the same manufacturer did not differ statistically from that of the matched group (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the results listed in the National Joint Registry and the New Zealand Joint Registry, the survival probability in our study was, statistically, significantly higher in total hip replacements using components of the same manufacturer. Importantly, mixing and matching the components of different manufacturers led to similar survival providing the head and the stem were from the same manufacturer.

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

Mismatch 'never events' in hip and knee arthroplasty: a cohort and intervention study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to give estimates of the incidence of component incompatibility in hip and knee arthroplasty and to test the effect of an online, real-time compatibility check.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Intraoperative barcode registration of arthroplasty implants was introduced in Denmark in 2013. We developed a compatibility database and, from May 2017, real-time compatibility checking was implemented and became part of the registration. We defined four classes of component incompatibility: A-I, A-II, B-I, and B-II, depending on an assessment of the level of risk to the patient (A/B), and on whether incompatibility was knowingly accepted (I/II).

RESULTS

A total of 26 524 arthroplasties were analyzed. From 12 307 procedures that were undertaken before implementation of the compatibility check, 21 class A incompatibilities were identified (real- or high-risk combinations; 0.17%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.26). From 5692 hip and 6615 knee procedures prior to implementation of the compatibility check, we found rates of class A-I incompatibility (real- or high-risk combinations unknowingly inserted) of 0.14% (95% CI 0.06 to 0.28) and 0.17% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30), respectively. From 14 217 procedures after the introduction of compatibility checking (7187 hips and 7030 knees), eight class A incompatibilities (0.06%; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11) were identified. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Our data presents validated estimates of the baseline incidence of incompatibility events for hip and knee arthroplasty procedures and shows that a significant reduction in class A incompatibility events is possible using a web-based recording system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:960-969.

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.

Displacement of an uncemented acetabular component after dislocation of a total hip prosthesis. A case report

Review of the literature reveals few reports of complications encountered with noncemented acetabular components; most concern problems with screw or cup placement, component wear or migration, or disassembly of modular components. No reports involving the displacement of a noncemented acetabular component were found. This is a case report of a patient in whom a noncemented acetabular component was dislodged after the closed reduction of a dislocated total hip prosthesis 4.5 weeks after surgery. In light of this case, the authors believe these reductions should be performed under general anesthesia with fluoroscopic guidance. Care must be taken at surgery to ream sufficiently and obtain proper cup fit and position. Finally, the authors recommend bicortical screw fixation to provide maximum contact and rigid fixation in the early postoperative period.