Aims

Psychological status may be an important predictor of outcome after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of psychological distress on postoperative health-related quality of life, joint function, self-assessed pain, and sports ability in patients undergoing PAO.

Dual-mobility (DM) bearings are effective to mitigate dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, data on its use for treating dislocation is scarce. Aim of this study was to compare DM bearings, standard bearings and constrained liner (CL) in revision THA for recurrent dislocation and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation.

We reviewed 100 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation from 2012 and 2019. 45 hips (45%) received a DM construct, while 44 hips (44%) and 11 hips (11%) had a standard bearing and CL, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for cup positioning, restoration of centre of rotation, leg length and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by cox regression analysis. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Mean follow-up was 53 months (1 to 103).

DM constructs were used more frequently in elderly patients (p=0.011) and hips with abductor deficiency (p< 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 11.1% for DM bearings compared with 15.9% for standard bearings and 18.2% for CL (p=0.732). Revision-free survival for DM constructs was 83% (95% CI 0.77 – 0.90) compared to 75% (95% CI 0.68 – 0.82) for standard articulations and 71% (95% CI 0.56 – 0.85) for CL (p=0.455). Younger age (HR 0.91; p=0.020), lower comorbidity (HR 0.42; p=0.031), smaller heads (HR 0.80; p=0.041) and cup retention (HR 8.23; p=0.022) were associated with re-dislocation. Radiological analysis did not reveal a relationship between restoration of hip geometry and re-dislocation. mHHS significantly improved from 43.8 points to 65.7 points (p<0.001) with no differences among bearing types.

Our findings suggest that DM bearings do not sufficiently prevent dislocation in revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Reconstruction of the abductor complex may play a key role to reduce the burden in these high-risk patients.

Background: Endoprosthetic reconstruction has become the gold standard of treatment after the resection of tumors around the proximal femur, however, the rate of complications linked to megaprostheses is clearly higher than with standard implants. Aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and type of complications related to modular proximal femur prostheses.

Patients and Methods: By retrospective database analysis of the Vienna Tumor Registry, we evaluated the incidence of complications in 170 consecutive patients who have received a proximal femur KMFTR/GMRS at our institution between 1982 and 2007. 71 patients with an average age of 41.7 years (range 18.2–79.9 years) received the implant following the resection of a malignant bone tumor, 95 patients with an average age of 61.7 years (range 5.9–84.2 years) due to metastatic disease. The average time of follow-up was 3.5 years (SD ±4.9 years).

Results: Overall patient survival at five years was 32%. For patients with metastatic disease the overall survival was 10% at five years. Patients being treated for a primary bone tumor had an overall survival of 55% at 5 years. The overall survival of the prosthesis was 90% at two years and 72% at five years. Twenty-one patients (12.65%) suffered from dislocation after a mean time of 6.5 month (range 0.3–33 months) after surgery. Out of these, nine had to be treated by open reduction. Nine patients suffered recurrent dislocation after their first event. Patients who underwent extensive pelvic reconstruction had a significantly higher dislocation rate (33.3%) compared to patients with no or standard acetabular components (11.2%). Deep infection occurred in twelve patients (7.3%) after a mean of 39 months (range 1–166 months) after surgery. Treatment of infection was one-stage revision in eight and hip disarticulation in one patient. Two patients were successfully treated by local wound revision. One patient died of septic shock four days after surgery. Re-infection occurred in three patients. Aseptic loosing occurred in 13 patients (12.8%) after a mean time of 75.6 months (range 1–223 months) after surgery. Revision surgery was necessary in 27 patients (15.8%) with a mean time to first revision of 32 months (range 0.3–116 months). Prosthetic fracture was found in two patients. Local recurrence occurred in 14 patients (8.4%). In seven patients (4.2%) amputation was necessary.

Conclusion: Modular endoprosthesis allow excellent reconstruction of the proximal femur following tumor resection. However, the main complications, dislocation and infection, still remain considerable drawbacks.

The treatment of deep prosthetic infection in cancer patients with tumour prostheses remains the major complication to be dealt with in this population.

The Vienna Bone Tumour Registry includes information of more than 6500 patients of a period of 36 years. 145 patients with malignant proximal femoral tumors had resection and limb salvage with an uncemented Kotz modular femoral and tibial reconstruction megaprosthesis (KMFTR). There were twenty osteosarcomas, thirteen Ewing’s sarcomas, six chondrosarcomas, six plasmozytomas, three fibrosarcomas, three liposacomas and others. Thirteen patients (7 males, 6 females with an average age of 45 years, range 10 to 75 years) suffered from deep prosthetic infection within an average of 44 months after primary implantation, representing an infection rate of 8,97 percent.

Average follow-up was 109 months, range 7 to 339 months. Two patients with only mild signs of infection were treated by a conservative antibiotic regimen. Nine patients were treated by one-stage revision. One of the remaining two patients with severe infection underwent exarticulation of the hip as primary intervention, the other patient died due to general sepsis on the fourth post-operative day. Six patients showed no further signs of infection. Six patients, however, required one or more reoperations due to recurrent prosthetic infection. Among these four patients have successfully been treated by repeated one-stage revision, in two patients the prosthesis had to be removed permanently.

Deep prosthetic infection around modular tumour prostheses of the proximal femur and hip seems to be less common compared to distal femur, knee or tibia. However, the treatment of this complication has a higher failure rate due to multiply recurrent infection.