Patients with spinal pathology who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) have an increased risk of dislocation and revision. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of the Hip-Spine Classification system in these patients would result in a decreased rate of postoperative dislocation in patients with spinal pathology. This prospective, multicentre study evaluated 3,777 consecutive patients undergoing THA by three surgeons, between January 2014 and December 2019. They were categorized using The Hip-Spine Classification system: group 1 with normal spinal alignment; group 2 with a flatback deformity, group 2A with normal spinal mobility, and group 2B with a stiff spine. Flatback deformity was defined by a pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis of > 10°, and spinal stiffness was defined by < 10° change in sacral slope from standing to seated. Each category determined a patient-specific component positioning. Survivorship free of dislocation was recorded and spinopelvic measurements were compared for reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient.Aims
Methods
Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute prosthetic hip infection is a popular low morbidity option despite less than optimal success rates. We theorized that the delay between DAIR and explantation in failed cases may complicate eradication due to biofilm maturation and entrenchment of bacteria in periprosthetic bone. We ask, what are the results of two-stage reimplantation after a failed DAIR versus an initial two-stage procedure? 114 patients were treated with 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection. 65 were treated initially with a 2-stage exchange, while 49 underwent an antecedent DAIR prior to a 2-stage exchange. Patients were classified according to MSIS host criteria. Failure was defined as return to the OR for infection, a draining sinus, or systemic infection.Introduction
Methods
While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA.Aims
Patients and Methods
There remains confusion in the literature with regard to the spinopelvic relationship, and its contribution to ideal acetabular component position. Critical assessment of the literature has been limited by use of conflicting terminology and definitions of new concepts that further confuse the topic. In 2017, the concept of a Hip-Spine Workgroup was created with the first meeting held at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Annual Meeting in 2018. The goal of this workgroup was to first help standardize terminology across the literature so that as a topic, multiple groups could produce literature that is immediately understandable and applicable. This consensus review from the Hip-Spine Workgroup aims to simplify the spinopelvic relationship, offer hip surgeons a concise summary of available literature, and select common terminology approved by both hip surgeons and spine surgeons for future research. Cite this article:
The routine use of dual-mobility (DM) acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) may not be cost-effective, but an increasing number of patients undergoing THA have a coexisting spinal disorder, which increases the risk of postoperative instability, and these patients may benefit from DM articulations. This study seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of DM components as an alternative to standard articulations in these patients. A decision analysis model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using DM components in patients who would be at high risk for dislocation within one year of THA. Direct and indirect costs of dislocation, incremental costs of using DM components, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values, and the probabilities of dislocation were derived from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was established with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine the impact of variation.Aims
Patients and Methods
