Introduction. Historically, the most common indications for re-revision of a total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been aseptic loosening, instability, infection, and peri-prosthetic fracture. As revision implants and techniques have evolved and improved, understanding why contemporary revision THAs fail is important to direct further improvement and innovation. As such, the goals of this study were to determine the implant survivorship of contemporary revision THAs, as well as the most common indications for re-revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 2568 aseptic revision THAs completed at our academic institution between 2005 and 2015 through our total joint registry. There were 34% isolated acetabular revisions, 18% isolated femoral revisions, 28% both component revisions, and 20% modular component exchanges. The mean age at index revision THA was 66 years, and 46% were males. The most common indications for the index revision THA were aseptic loosening (21% acetabular, 15% femoral, 5% both components), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (18%), instability (13%), fracture (11%), and other (17%). Mean follow-up was 6 years. Results. There were 211 re-revision THAs during the study period in this cohort. The overall survivorship free of any re-revision at 2, 5, and 10 years was 94%, 92%, and 88%, respectively. The most common reasons for re-revision were hip instability (52%), peri-prosthetic fracture (11%), femoral aseptic loosening (10%), acetabular aseptic loosening (8%), infection (6%), polyethylene wear (3%), and other (10%). A pre-revision diagnosis of instability had the worst survivorship free of revision at 10 years (79%). Conclusion. Compared to historical series, the 88% survivorship free of any re-revision at 10 years in a difficult revision cohort is notably improved. As implant fixation has improved, aseptic loosening has become much less common after revision THA, and instability has come to account for more than half of re-revisions. Methods to further mitigate this risk may be emphasized during index revision THA

Recent studies have reported on non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) patients requiring revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Although the outcomes following revision surgery for ARMD in MoMHA patients are known to generally be poor, little evidence exists regarding outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD. We determined the outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary non-MoMHA patients who subsequently underwent revision surgery for ARMD between 2008–2014 were included (n=185). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intraoperative complications, mortality, and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision surgery were identified using Cox regression analysis. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n=11) of ARMD revisions. The cumulative 4-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI=92.9–99.5%). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n=25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest re-revision indications. The cumulative 4-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%-88.9%). Significant predictors of re-revision were: multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49; p=0.043), incomplete revision procedures (including modular component exchange only) (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9; p=0.022), and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR=3.08; 95% CI=1.01–9.36; p=0.047). Non-MoMHA patients undergoing ARMD revision have a high short-term risk of re-revision. Infection, dislocation/subluxation, and aseptic loosening were the commonest re-revision indications. Furthermore, important and potentially modifiable predictors of future re-revision were identified. Although the poor prognostic factors identified require validation in future studies, our findings may be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with ARMD revision surgery, and guide decisions about the reconstructive procedure

Aims

Instability is a common cause of failure after total hip arthroplasty. A novel reverse total hip has been developed, with a femoral cup and acetabular ball, creating enhanced mechanical stability. The purpose of this study was to assess the implant fixation using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and the clinical safety and efficacy of this novel design.

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5.

We have studied the natural history of a first episode of dislocation after primary total hip replacement (THR) to clarify the incidence of recurrent dislocation, the need for subsequent revision and the quality of life of these patients.

Over a six-year period, 99 patients (101 hips) presented with a first dislocation of a primary THR. A total of 61 hips (60.4%) had dislocated more than once. After a minimum follow-up of one year, seven patients had died. Of the remaining 94 hips (92 patients), 47 underwent a revision for instability and one awaits operation (51% in total). Of these, seven re-dislocated and four needed further surgery. The quality of life of the patients was studied using the Oxford Hip Score and the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A control group of patients who had not dislocated was also studied. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1 to 20), the mean Oxford Hip Score was 26.7 (15 to 47) after one episode of dislocation, 27.2 (12 to 45) after recurrent dislocation, 34.5 (12 to 54) after successful revision surgery, 42 (29 to 55) after failed revision surgery and 17.4 (12 to 32) in the control group. The EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire revealed more health problems in patients undergoing revision surgery.

Deep prosthetic joint infection remains an uncommon but serious complication of total hip replacement. We reviewed 24 patients with recalcitrant hip wounds following infected total hip replacement treated with either pedicled rectus femoris or vastus lateralis muscle flaps between 1998 and 2009. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years (42 to 86) with ten men and 14 women.

There had been a mean of four (1 to 8) previous attempts to close the wound. A total of 20 rectus femoris and five vastus lateralis flaps were used, with one of each type of flap failing and requiring further reconstruction. All patients had positive microbiology. At a mean follow-up of 47 months (9 to 128), 22 patients had a healed wound and two had a persistent sinus. The prosthesis had been retained in five patients. In the remainder it had been removed, and subsequently re-implanted in nine patients. Six patients continued to take antibiotics at final follow-up.

This series demonstrates the effectiveness of pedicled muscle flaps in healing these infected wounds. The high number of previous debridements suggests that these flaps could have been used earlier.