Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure. Integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability. Large diameter heads (LDH), Dual Mobility (DM) and Constrained Acetabular Liners (CAL) are enhanced stability options but the indication for these choices remains unclear. We assessed an algorithm based on Gluteus Medius (GM) deficiency to determine bearing selection. Default choice with no GM damage was a LDH. GM deficiency with posterior muscle intact received DM and CAL for GM complete deficiency with loss of posterior muscle. Consecutive revision THA series followed to determine dislocation, all-cause re-revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). 311 revision THA with mean age 70 years (32–95). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years overall dislocation rate 4.1% (95%CI 2.4–7.0) and survivorship free of re-revision 94.2% (95%CI 96.3–91.0). Outcomes:
Mean pre-op OHS: 19.6 (2–47) and mean post-op OHS: 33.9 (4–48). Kaplan-Meier analysis at 60 months dislocation-free survival was 96.1% (95% CI: 93.0–97.8). There was no difference between survival distributions comparing bearing choice (p=0.46). Decision making tools to guide selection are limited and in addition soft tissue deficiency has been poorly defined. The posterior vertical fibres of GM have the greatest lateral stabiliser effect on the hip. The algorithm we have used clearly defined indication & implant selection. We believe our outcomes support the use of an enhanced stability bearing selection algorithm.
Contemporary acetabular reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss often involves the use of porous metal augments, a cup-cage construct or custom implant. The aims of this study were: To determine the reproducibility of a reconstruction algorithm in major acetabular bone loss. To determine the subsequent success of reconstruction performed in terms of re-operation, all-cause revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and to further define the indications for custom implants in major acetabular bone loss. Consecutive series of Paprosky Type III defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical cup. IIIB defects were planned to receive either augment and cup, cup-cage or custom implant. 105 procedures in cohort 100 patients (5 bilateral) with mean age 73 years (42–94). IIIA defects (50 cases) − 72.0% (95%CI 57.6–82.1) required a porous metal augment the remainder treated with a hemispherical cup alone. IIIB defects (55 cases) 71.7% (95%CI 57.6–82.1) required either augments or cup-cage. 20 patients required a hemispherical cup alone and 6 patients received a custom-made implant. Mean follow up of 7.6 years. 6 re-revisions were required (4 PJI, 2 peri-prosthetic fractures & 1 recurrent instability) with overall survivorship of 94.3% (95% CI 97.4–88.1) for all cause revision. Single event dislocations occurred in 3 other patients so overall dislocation rate 3.8%. Mean pre-op OHS 13.8 and mean follow-up OHS 29.8. Custom implants were used in: Mega-defects where AP diameter >80mm, complex discontinuity and massive bone loss in a small pelvis (i.e., unable to perform cup-cage) A reconstruction algorithm can >70% successfully predict revision construct which thereafter is durable with a low risk of re-operation. Jumbo cup utilized <1/3 of cases when morphology allowed. The use of custom implants has been well defined in this series and accounts for <5% of cases.
This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Data were collected for PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres between 25 May 2006 and 1 March 2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and AO/OTA type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (polished taper-slip (PTS) vs composite beam (CB)). The effect of multiple variables was estimated using multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Surgical treatment (revision vs fixation) was compared by UCS grade and AO/OTA type.Aims
Methods
We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression.Objectives
Methods
The Corail stem is a fully HA coated tapered implant that has demonstrated long-term success. On the NJR it has become one of the most commonly used implants in the UK. The aim of our study was to document our experience of the revision of this implant together highlighting some important technical considerations. A retrospective review of a consecutive case series of revision procedures where the Corail stem was extracted. We considered time since implantation, collared or uncollared design, indication for revision, Paprosky classification of femoral deficiency, endo-femoral reconstruction or extended approach/osteotomy, subsequent reconstruction either further primary type implant (cemented or cementless) or revision femoral implant.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement. A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of >
55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections. To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit.
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.
