Aims. Dual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD. Methods. A total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management. Results. The incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation. Conclusion. The overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):98–104

Aims. Dislocation remains a significant complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), being the third leading indication for revision. We present a series of acetabular revision using a dual mobility cup (DMC) and compare this with our previous series using the posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD). Methods. A retrospective review of patients treated with either a DMC or PLAD for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA was performed. They were identified using electronic patient records (EPR). EPR data and radiographs were evaluated to determine operating time, length of stay, and the incidence of complications and recurrent dislocation postoperatively. Results. A total of 28 patients underwent revision using a DMC for dislocation following Charnley THA between 2013 and 2017. The rate of recurrent dislocation and overall complications were compared with those of a previous series of 54 patients who underwent revision for dislocation using a PLAD, between 2007 and 2013. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean distribution of sex or age between the groups. The mean operating time was 71 mins (45 to 113) for DMCs and 43 mins (21 to 84) for PLADs (p = 0.001). There were no redislocations or revisions in the DMC group at a mean follow-up of 55 months (21 to 76), compared with our previous series of PLAD which had a redislocation rate of 16% (n = 9) and an overall revision rate of 25% (n = 14, p = 0.001) at a mean follow-up of 86 months (45 to 128). Conclusion. These results indicate that DMC outperforms PLAD as a treatment for dislocation in patients with a Charnley THA. This should therefore be the preferred form of treatment for these patients despite a slightly longer operating time. Work is currently ongoing to review outcomes of DMC over a longer follow-up period. PLAD should be used with caution in this patient group with preference given to acetabular revision to DMC. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):423–425

The need for supplementary screw fixation in acetabular revisions is still widely debated. We carried out 439 acetabular revisions over an eight-year period. In 171 hips with contained or small segmental defects, the Morscher press-fit cup was used. These revisions were followed prospectively. No screws were used for additional fixation. A total of 123 hips with a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (5 to 10.5) were available for clinical and radiological review. There was no further revision of a press-fit cup for aseptic loosening. Radiological assessment revealed osteolysis in three hips. Of the original 171 hips there was cranial and medial migration of up to 6 mm at two years in 44 (26%). No further migration was seen after the second post-operative year. Acetabular revision without screws is possible with excellent medium-term results in well selected patients

Aims. This single-centre observational study aimed to describe the results of extensive bone impaction grafting of the whole acetabular cavity in combination with an uncemented component in acetabular revisions performed in a standardized manner since 1993. Methods. Between 1993 and 2013, 370 patients with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 79 years) underwent acetabular revision surgery. Of these, 229 were more than ten years following surgery and 137 were more than 15 years. All revisions were performed with extensive use of morcellized allograft firmly impacted into the entire acetabular cavity, followed by insertion of an uncemented component with supplementary screw fixation. All types of reoperation were captured using review of radiographs and medical charts, combined with data from the local surgical register and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Results. Among patients with possible follow-up of ten and 15 years, 152 and 72 patients remained alive without revision of the acetabular component. The number of deaths was 61 and 50, respectively. Of those who died, six patients in each group had a reoperation performed before death. The number of patients with a reoperation was 22 for those with ten-year follow-up and 21 for those with 15 years of follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for aseptic loosening among all 370 patients in the cohort was 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1 to 98.5) after ten years and 92.8% (95% CI 89.2 to 96.6) after 15 years. Conclusion. Extensive bone impaction grafting combined with uncemented revision components appears to be a reliable method with favourable long-term survival. This technique offers the advantage of bone stock restoration and disputes the long-standing perception that uncemented components require > 50% of host bone contact for successful implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):198–204

We present an update of the clinical and radiological results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impacted morsellised cancellous bone grafts and a cemented acetabular component in 58 patients, at a mean follow-up of 22.2 years (20 to 25). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for the acetabular component with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 75% at 20 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 62 to 88) when 16 hips were at risk. Excluding two revisions for septic loosening at three and six years, the survivorship at 20 years was 79% (95% CI 67 to 93). With further exclusions of one revision of a well-fixed acetabular component after 12 years during a femoral revision and two after 17 years for wear of the acetabular component, the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 87% at 20 years (95% CI 76 to 97). At the final review 14 of the 16 surviving hips had radiographs available. There was one additional case of radiological loosening and four acetabular reconstructions showed progressive radiolucent lines in one or two zones. Acetabular revision using impacted large morsellised bone chips (0.5 cm to 1 cm in diameter) and a cemented acetabular component remains a reliable technique for reconstruction, even when assessed at more than 20 years after surgery

This study presents the clinical and radiological results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions in 58 patients, at a mean of 16.5 years follow-up (15 to 20). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for the cup with end-point revisions for any reason, was 79% at 15 years (95% confidence interval (CI); 67 to 91). Excluding two revisions for septic loosening at three and six years, and one revision of a well-fixed cup after 12 years in the course of a femoral revision, the survivorship was 84% at 15 years (95% CI; 73 to 95). At review there were no additional cases of loosening, although seven acetabular reconstructions showed radiolucent lines in one or two zones. Acetabular revision using impacted large morsellised bone chips (0.7 cm to 1.0 cm) and a cemented cup, is a reliable technique of reconstruction, when assessed at more than 15 years

Failure of total hip arthroplasty with acetabular deficiency occurred in 55 patients (60 hips) and was treated with acetabular revision using morsellised allograft and a cemented metal-backed component. A total of 50 patients (55 hips) were available for clinical and radiological evaluation at a mean follow-up of 5.8 years (3 to 9.5). No hip required further revision of the acetabular component because of aseptic loosening. All the hips except one had complete incorporation of the allograft demonstrated on the radiographs. A complete radiolucent line of > 1 mm was noted in two hips post-operatively. A good to excellent result occurred in 50 hips (91%). With radiological evidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component as the end-point, the survivorship at a mean of 5.8 years after surgery was 96.4%. The use of impacted allograft chips in combination with a cemented metal-backed acetabular component and screw fixation can achieve good medium-term results in patients with acetabular bone deficiency

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7

Pelvic discontinuity with associated bone loss is a complex challenge in acetabular revision surgery. Reconstruction using ilio-ischial cages combined with trabecular metal acetabular components and morsellised bone (the component-cage technique) is a relatively new method of treatment. We reviewed a consecutive series of 26 cases of acetabular revision reconstructions in 24 patients with pelvic discontinuity who had been treated by the component-cage technique. The mean follow-up was 44.6 months (24 to 68). Failure was defined as migration of a component of > 5 mm. In 23 hips (88.5%) there was no clinical or radiological evidence of loosening at the last follow-up. The mean Harris hip score improved significantly from 46.6 points (29.5 to 68.5) to 76.6 points (55.5 to 92.0) at two years (p < 0.001). In three hips (11.5%) the construct had migrated at one year after operation. The complications included two dislocations, one infection and one partial palsy of the peroneal nerve. Our findings indicate that treatment of pelvic discontinuity using the component-cage construct is a reliable option

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the evidence for the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty, and specifically to analyze the available data in order to quantify any associated reduction in the use of allogenic blood transfusion, and the volume which is used.

We present the results of 62 consecutive acetabular revisions using impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene acetabular component in 58 patients (13 men and 45 women) after a mean follow-up of 27 years (25 to 30). All patients were prospectively followed. The mean age at revision was 59.2 years (23 to 82).

We performed Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and also a Competing Risk (CR) analysis because with long-term follow-up, the presence of a competing event (i.e. death) prevents the occurrence of the endpoint of re-revision.

A total of 48 patients (52 hips) had died or had been re-revised at final review in March 2011. None of the deaths were related to the surgery. The mean Harris hip score of the ten surviving hips in ten patients was 76 points (45 to 99).

The KM survivorship at 25 years for the endpoint ‘re-revision for any reason’ was 58.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 73) and for ‘re-revision for aseptic loosening’ 72.1% (95% CI 51 to 85). With the CR analysis we calculated the KM analysis overestimates the failure rate with respectively 74% and 93% for these endpoints. The current study shows that acetabular impaction bone grafting revisions provide good clinical results at over 25 years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1338–44.

Trabecular metal (TM) augments are a relatively new option for reconstructing segmental bone loss during acetabular revision. We studied 34 failed hip replacements in 34 patients that were revised between October 2003 and March 2010 using a TM acetabular shell and one or two augments. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 69.3 years (46 to 86) and the mean follow-up was 64.5 months (27 to 107). In all, 18 patients had a minor column defect, 14 had a major column defect, and two were associated with pelvic discontinuity. The hip centre of rotation was restored in 27 patients (79.4%). The Oxford hip score increased from a mean of 15.4 points (6 to 25) before revision to a mean of 37.7 (29 to 47) at the final follow-up. There were three aseptic loosenings of the construct, two of them in the patients with pelvic discontinuity. One septic loosening also occurred in a patient who had previously had an infected hip replacement. The augments remained stable in two of the failed hips. Whenever there was a loose acetabular component in contact with a stable augment, progressive metal debris shedding was evident on the serial radiographs. Complications included another deep infection treated without revision surgery. Good clinical and radiological results can be expected for bone-deficient acetabula treated by a TM cup and augment, but for pelvic discontinuities this might not be a reliable option.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:166–72.

We have reviewed 29 patients (30 hips) who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty using a Freeman metal-backed acetabular component and acetabular impaction allografting. The mean follow-up was for 15.3 years (12 to 17).

Five patients (5 hips) died with the prosthesis in situ and four (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. Twelve hips had failed and in the remaining nine there were minor symptoms. The mean time to failure requiring further surgery was nine years. Excluding patients who were lost to follow-up or had died, 72% of the hips were radiologically loose at the last review. The commonest pattern in those requiring revision was failure of the reinforcement ring in adduction with remodelling of the medial wall.

Of the nine patients who had not undergone revision, one with bilateral replacements had no current radiographs and only three of the remaining seven replacements had no radiological signs of loosening.

The short-term results for this technique have been reported to be satisfactory, but in the long term they are not. The factors associated with failure include the design of the prosthesis, which has been implicated in disappointing long-term results when used in primary arthroplasty, but not with the frequency of failure found in this series. It seems that the reliance on peripheral screw fixation over a bed of allograft without bridging the graft does not provide sufficient stability to allow incorporation of the graft.

We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered

We evaluated the accuracy with which a custom-made acetabular component could be positioned at revision arthroplasty of the hip in patients with a Paprosky type 3 acetabular defect.

A total of 16 patients with a Paprosky type 3 defect underwent revision surgery using a custom-made trabecular titanium implant. There were four men and 12 women with a median age of 67 years (48 to 79). The planned inclination (INCL), anteversion (AV), rotation and centre of rotation (COR) of the implant were compared with the post-operative position using CT scans.

A total of seven implants were malpositioned in one or more parameters: one with respect to INCL, three with respect to AV, four with respect to rotation and five with respect to the COR.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which CT data acquired for the pre-operative planning of a custom-made revision acetabular implant have been compared with CT data on the post-operative position. The results are encouraging.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:780–5.

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical models of two frequently used techniques for reconstructing severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) – the Trabecular Metal Acetabular Revision System (TMARS) and custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) – using virtual modelling. Methods. Pre- and postoperative CT scans from ten patients who underwent revision with the TMARS for a Paprosky IIIB acetabular defect with pelvic discontinuity were retrospectively collated. Computer models of a CTAC implant were designed from the preoperative CT scans of these patients. Computer models of the TMARS reconstruction were segmented from postoperative CT scans using a semi-automated method. The amount of bone removed, the implant-bone apposition that was achieved, and the restoration of the centre of rotation of the hip were compared between all the actual TMARS and the virtual CTAC implants. Results. The median amount of bone removed for TMARS reconstructions was significantly greater than for CTAC implants (9.07 cm. 3. (interquartile range (IQR) 5.86 to 21.42) vs 1.16 cm. 3. (IQR 0.42 to 3.53) (p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the median overall implant-bone apposition between TMARS reconstructions and CTAC implants (54.8 cm. 2. (IQR 28.2 to 82.3) vs 56.6 cm. 2. (IQR 40.6 to 69.7) (p = 0.683). However, there was significantly more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabulum (45.2 cm. 2. (IQR 28.2 to 72.4) vs 25.5 cm. 2. (IQR 12.8 to 44.1) (p = 0.001) and conversely significantly less apposition with the outer cortex of the pelvis for TMARS implants compared with CTAC reconstructions (0 cm. 2. (IQR 0 to 13.1) vs 23.2 cm. 2. (IQR 16.4 to 30.6) (p = 0.009). The mean centre of rotation of the hip of TMARS reconstructions differed by a mean of 11.1 mm (3 to 28) compared with CTAC implants. Conclusion. In using TMARS, more bone is removed, thus achieving more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabular bone. In CTAC implants, the amount of bone removed is minimal, while the implant-bone apposition is more evenly distributed between the residual acetabulum and the outer cortex of the pelvis. The differences suggest that these implants used to treat pelvic discontinuity might achieve short- and long-term stability through different biomechanical mechanisms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):74–81

Aims. Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years. Methods. Using the database of a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome. Results. The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner. Conclusion. When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66–72

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of a lateral rim mesh on the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients, aged 50 years or younger. Patients and Methods. We compared a study group of 235 patients (257 hips) who received a primary THA with the use of impaction bone grafting (IBG) with an additional lateral rim mesh with a group of 306 patients (343 hips) who received IBG in the absence of a lateral rim mesh during the same period from 1988 to 2015. In the mesh group, there were 74 male and 183 female patients, with a mean age of 35 years (13 to 50). In the no-mesh group, there were 173 male and 170 female patients, with a mean age of 38 years (12.6 to 50). Cox regression analyses were performed to study the effect of a lateral rim mesh on acetabular component survival. Kaplan–Meier analyses with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed to estimate the survival of the acetabular implant. Results. The hazard ratio for the use of lateral rim mesh, adjusted for potential confounders, for acetabular revision for any reason was 0.50 (95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; p = 0.31) and for acetabular revision for aseptic loosening was 0.29 (95% CI 0.020 to 4.04; p = 0.35). The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a ten-year survival for aseptic loosening of the acetabular of 98% (95% CI 95 to 100, n = 65 at risk) in the mesh group and 94% (89 to 98, n = 76 at risk) in the no-mesh group. The 15-year survival for aseptic acetabular loosening was 90% (81 to 100, n = 35 at risk) in the mesh group and 85% (77 to 94, n = 45 at risk) in the no-mesh group (p = 0.23). Conclusion. This study shows that the use of a lateral rim mesh in primary THA in young patients is not associated with a higher risk of revision of the acetabular component. Therefore, we consider a lateral rim mesh combined with IBG to be effective in reconstructing segmental acetabular defects in primary THA