Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods. We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups. Results. The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mOHS than patients with other indications for revision. Pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mOHS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively). Conclusion. Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):859–866

Infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. With an ageing population and increased demands for THA, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is expected to become an even greater problem in the future. In late PJI a one- or two-stage revision procedure is most often used. Factors determining the outcomes are not fully understood and there is controversy in the choice between the two methods. The, two-stage method in infected THA is regarded as more resource demanding and is associated with a high distress in the patients. The aim of this study was to compare the risk for second revision (re-revision) between one- and two-stage revision. During 1979–2015, 1659 first-time revisions performed due to infection were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Two-stage revision was the most common procedure (n=1255). Risk for a re-revision was compared between one- and two-stage revision using Cox-regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis and method of fixation. The primary end-point was a re-revision regardless of cause. Aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation necessitating re-revision were used as secondary outcomes. There was no difference in risk of re-revision regardless of cause (HR (one-stage/two-stage)=0.9, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.1, p=0.3), re-revision due to aseptic loosening (HR=1.1, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.6, p=0.7) or re-revision due to infection (HR=0.7, 95% C.I.=0.5–1.1, p=0.2). Dislocation necessitating a re-revision was less common in the one-stage group (HR=0.4, 95% C.I.=0.2–0.9, p=0.03). In this analysis re-revision rates were similar in the two groups. When analysed specifically for infection, risk of re-revision did not differ between one and two stage revision. Our findings confirm recent systematic reviews on the matter. This observational study supports increased utilisation of the one-stage approach. However prospective randomized studies are needed to validate these findings

Aims. Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used. Patients and Methods. We identified 1179 cement-in-cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results. Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (. sd). 2.8% versus 85% . sd. 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re-revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% . sd. 2.2%; 98% . sd. 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% . sd. 3.2%; 98% . sd.  2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion. The cement-in-cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):27–32

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the long-term outcomes of instrumented femoral revisions with impaction allograft bone grafting (IBG) using the X-change femoral revision system at 30 years after introduction of the technique. Methods. We updated the outcomes of our previous study, based on 208 consecutive revisions using IBG and the X-change femoral revision system in combination with a cemented polished stem, performed in our tertiary care institute between 1991 and 2007. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine the survival rate of the revisions with endpoint revision for any reason and aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes were radiological loosening and patient-reported outcome measures. Results. Mean age at revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) was 64.9 years (30 to 86). The most prevalent diagnosis for the femoral revision was aseptic loosening. At review in May 2021, 81 patients (85 hips) were still alive and 118 patients (120 hips; 58%) had died. Three patients (3 hips; 1%) were lost to follow-up at 11, 15, and 16 years after surgery, respectively. Data of all deceased and lost patients were included until final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 13.4 years (0 to 28). During the follow-up, 22 re-revisions were performed. The most common reason for re-revision was infection (n = 12; 54%). The survival with endpoint re-revision for any reason was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 91) at 20 years and 74% (95% CI 43 to 89) at 25 years after surgery. The survival for endpoint re-revision for aseptic loosening was 97% (95% CI 91 to 99) after both 20 and 25 years. Conclusion. We conclude that femoral IBG is a valuable technique that can reconstitute femoral bone loss in the long term. After 25 years of follow-up, few re-revisions for aseptic loosening were required. Also, the overall revision rate is very acceptable at a long follow-up. This technique is especially attractive for younger patients facing femoral revisions with extensive bone loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1039–1046

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation. We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m. 2. , and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years. The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06). In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation. Level of Evidence: IV

Sound management decisions are critical to outcomes in revision arthroplasty. Aiming to improve outcomes, revision networks facilitate speciality trained, high volume surgeons, share experience and best practice, contributing to decision making within and away from their base hospital. We have reported the early clinical experience of East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network (EMSON). In this paper we report beneficial clinical effects, both demonstrable and unquantifiable supporting the process. Using the UK HES database of revisions, performed before and after EMSON was established, (April 2011 – March 2018), data from EMSON hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in the same time-period. Primary outcome was re-revision surgery within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were re-revision, complications within first two years and median LOS. 57,621 RTHA and 33,828 RTKA procedures were involved with around 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%) respectively performed within EMSON. Re-revision THA rates, within 1 year, in EMSON were 7.3% and 6.0% with re-revision knee rates 11.6% and 7.4%, pre- and post-intervention. Re-revision rates in the rest England in the same periods were 7.4% to 6.8% for hips and 11.7% to 9.7% for knees. This constituted a significant improvement in 1-year re-revision rates for EMSON knees. (β = −0.072 (−0.133 to −0.01), p = 0.024). The reduction in hip re-revision did not reach statistical significance. Secondary outcomes showed a significant improvement for 1 and 2-year RTHA complication rates. Re-revision rates for RTKA and complication rates for RTHA improved significantly after the introduction of EMSON. Other outcomes studied also improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals. While anecdotal experience with networks is positive, the challenge in collating data to prove clinic benefit should not be underestimated. Beyond the formal process, additional communication, interaction, and support has immeasurable benefit in both elective and emergency scenarios

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons

There remains concern with the use of constrained liners (CL) implanted at the time of acetabular cup revision in revision total hip replacement (rTHA). The aim of this study was to determine the implant survival in rTHA when a CL was implanted at the same time as acetabular cup revision. We reviewed our institutional database to identify all consecutive rTHAs where a CL was implanted simultaneously at the time acetabular cup revision from 2001 to 2021. One-hundred and seventy-four revisions (173 patients) were included in the study. Mean follow-up of 8.7 years (range two – 21.7). The most common indications for rTHA were instability (35%), second-stage periprosthetic joint infection (26.4%), and aseptic loosening (17.2%). Kaplan Meier Analysis was used to determine survival with all-cause re-revision and revision for cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure) as the endpoints. A total of 32 (18.3%) patients underwent re-revision at a mean time of 2.9 years (range 0.1 – 14.1). The most common reasons for re-revision were instability (14), periprosthetic joint infection (seven), and loosening of the femoral component (four). Three (1.7%) required re-revision due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (fixation failure) at a mean of two years (0.1 – 5.1). Acetabular component survival free from re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 98.9% (95% CI 97.3 – 100) at five-years and 98.1% (95% CI 95.8 – 100) at 10-years. There were no acetabular component fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. CLs implanted at the time acetabular cup revision in rTHA have a 98.1% 10-year survival free from acetabular cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure). There were no cup fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. Thus, when necessary, implanting a CL during revision of an acetabular component with stable screw fixation is safe with an extremely low risk of cup fixation failure

Aims. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods. In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results. Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion. Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers. This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA. There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA. Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate unexpected positive cultures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions for presumed aseptic loosening, to assess the prevalence of low-grade infection using two definition criteria, and to analyze its impact on implant survival after revision. Methods. A total of 274 THA revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. In addition to obtaining intraoperative tissue cultures from all patients, synovial and sonication fluid samples of the removed implant were obtained in 215 cases (79%) and 101 cases (37%), respectively. Histopathological analysis was performed in 250 cases (91%). Patients were classified as having low-grade infections according to institutional criteria and Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2013 criteria. Low-grade infections according to institutional criteria were treated with targeted antibiotics for six weeks postoperatively. Implant failure was defined as the need for re-revision resulting from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and aseptic reasons. The mean follow-up was 68 months (26 to 95). Results. Unexpected positive intraoperative samples were found in 77 revisions (28%). Low-grade infection was diagnosed in 36 cases (13%) using institutional criteria and in nine cases (3%) using MSIS ICM 2013 criteria. In all, 41 patients (15%) had single specimen growth of a low-virulent pathogen and were deemed contaminated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and anaerobes were the most commonly isolated bacteria. Implant failure for PJI was higher in revisions with presumed contaminants (5/41, 12%) compared to those with low-grade infections (2/36, 6%) and those with negative samples (5/197, 3%) (p = 0.021). The rate of all-cause re-revision was similar in patients diagnosed with low-grade infections (5/36, 14%) and those with presumed contaminants (6/41, 15%) and negative samples (21/197, 11%) (p = 0.699). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the presumption of culture contamination in aseptic revision hip arthroplasty may increase the detection of PJI. In this cohort, the presence of low-grade infection did not increase the risk of re-revision. Further studies are needed to assess the relevance of single specimen growth and the benefits of specific postoperative antibiotic regimens. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1070–1077

Dual mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a known rare complication of these implants and has reportedly decreased with modern implants. The purpose of this paper is to report the diagnosis and treatment of modern DM IPD. 1453 DM components were implanted between 2010 and 2021. 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. 49 hips sustained a dislocation of the large head and 5 sustained an IPD at presentation. 6 additional IPD occurred at the time of reduction of large head. The average age was 64, 54% were female and the mean follow-up was three years. Of the 11 IPD, 8 had a history of instability, 5 had abductor insufficiency, 4 had prior lumbar fusion, and 3 were conversions from fracture. The overall IPD incidence was 0.76%. Ten of the 11 DM IPD were missed at initial presentation or at the time of reduction, and all were discharged with presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was 3 weeks. One patient died with an IPD at 5 months. A DM head was reimplanted in six, two underwent revision of the acetabular component with exchange of DM head, and four were revised to a constrained liner. The re-revision rate was 55% at a mean 1.8 years. None of the patients who underwent cup revision required subsequent re-revision while half of the constrained liners and exchange of DM heads required re-revision. The overall rate of DM dislocation or IPD is low. It is critical to identify an IPD on radiographs as it was almost universally missed at presentation or when it occurred iatrogenically. For patients presenting with IPD, the surgeon should consider acetabular revision and conversion to a constrained liner or a larger DM, with special attention to removing impinging structures that could increase the risk of re-dislocation

Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture. Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene). 366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture. There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address

Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) articulations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have low wear, but the unique risk of fracture. After revision for CoC fracture, ceramic third bodies can lead to runaway wear of cobalt chrome (CoCr) causing extremely elevated blood cobalt. We present five cases of ceramic liner fractures revised to a CoCr head associated with the rapid development of severe cobalt toxicity. We identified 5 cases of fractured CoC THA treated with revision to CoCr on highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) – three to conventional bearings and two to modular dual mobility bearings (CoCr acetabular liner, CoCr femoral head, and HXLPE). Mean follow up was 2.5 years after CoCr/HXLPE re-revision. Symptoms of cobalt toxicity occurred at average 9.5 months after revision for ceramic fracture (range 6–12). All patients developed vision and hearing loss, balance difficulties, and peripheral neuropathy. Several had cardiomyopathy, endocrinopathy, and local skin discoloration. Two reported hip pain. Re-revision for cobalt toxicity occurred at an average of 22 months (range 10–36) after revision for ceramic fracture. Average serum cobalt level at re-revision was 991 μg/L (range 734–1302, normal <1 μg/L). All CoCr heads exhibited massive wear with asphericity; deep tissues exhibited prominent metallosis. Treatment consisted of debridement and revision to a ceramic head with HXLPE. Serum cobalt improved to an average of 25 μg/L at final follow up. All patients reported partial improvement in vision and hearing; peripheral neuropathy and balance did not recover. Systemic cobalt toxicity is a rare but devastating complication of ceramic fracture in THA treated with cobalt-alloy bearings. Cobalt alloy bearings should be avoided in this setting. The diagnosis of systemic cobalt toxicity requires a high index of suspicion and was typically delayed following systemic symptoms. Debridement and revision to a ceramic-on-HXLPE leads to improvement but not resolution of cobalt toxicity complications