Aims

Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.

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.

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).

Aim

Until now, there has been no consensus as to whether stemmed acetabular components are appropriate for use in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) who have major acetabular defects or pelvic discontinuity. We wished to address this deficiency in the literature.

Dual mobility cups have two points of articulation, one between the shell and the polyethylene (external bearing) and one between the polyethylene and the femoral head (internal bearing). Movement occurs at the inner bearing; the outer bearing only moves at extremes of movement.

Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a cause of much morbidity and its treatment has significant cost implications. Dual mobility cups provide an increased range of movement and a may reduce the risk of dislocation.

This paper reviews the use of these cups in THA, particularly where stability is an issue. Dual mobility cups may be of benefit in primary THA in patients at a high risk of dislocation, such as those who are older with increased comorbidities and a higher American Association of Anesthesiology grade and those with a neuromuscular disease. They may be used at revision surgery where the risk of dislocation is high, such as in patients with many prior dislocations, or those with abductor deficiency. They may also be used in THA for displaced fractures of the femoral neck, which has a notoriously high rate of dislocation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):60–3.

A number of studies have reported satisfactory results from the isolated revision of an acetabular component. However, many of these studies reported only the short- to intermediate-term results of heterogeneous bearing surfaces in a mixed age group.

We present our experience of using a ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing for isolated revision of an uncemented acetabular component in 166 patients (187 hips) who were under the age of 50 years at the time of revision. There were 78 men and 88 women with a mean age of 47.4 years (28 to 49). The most common reason for revision was polyethylene wear and acetabular osteolysis in 123 hips (66%), followed by aseptic loosening in 49 hips (26%).

We report the clinical and radiological outcome, complication rate, and survivorship of this group. The mean duration of follow-up was 15.6 years (11 to 19).

The mean pre-operative Harris hip score was 33 points (1 to 58), and improved to a mean of 88 points (51 to 100) at follow-up. The mean pre-operative total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 63.2 (43 to 91) and improved to 19.8 points (9 to 61) post-operatively. Overall, 153 of 166 patients (92%) were satisfied with their outcome. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis, with revision or radiological evidence of implant failure (13 patients, 8%) as end-points, was 92% at 15 years (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 0.97).

Isolated revision of a cementless acetabular component using a CoC bearing gives good results in patients under 50 years of age.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1197–1203.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a potentially devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty, with historically high rates of complication and failure because of the technical challenges of surgery, as well as the prevalence of advanced age and comorbidity in the patients at risk.

This study describes the short-term outcome after revision arthroplasty using a modular, titanium, tapered, conical stem for PFF in a series of 38 fractures in 37 patients.

The mean age of the cohort was 77 years (47 to 96). A total of 27 patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of at least 3. At a mean follow-up of 35 months (4 to 66) the mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 35 (15 to 48) and comorbidity was significantly associated with a poorer OHS. All fractures united and no stem needed to be revised. Three hips in three patients required further surgery for infection, recurrent PFF and recurrent dislocation and three other patients required closed manipulation for a single dislocation. One stem subsided more than 5 mm but then stabilised and required no further intervention.

In this series, a modular, tapered, conical stem provided a versatile reconstruction solution with a low rate of complications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1031–7.

Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies. Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup, typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available. Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability. The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned, it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.

We review the treatment of pelvic Ewing’s sarcoma by the implantation of extracorporeally-irradiated (ECI) autografts and compare the outcome with that of other reported methods.

We treated 13 patients with ECI autografts between 1994 and 2004. There were seven males and six females with a median age of 15.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 12.2 to 21.7). At a median follow-up of five years (IQR 1.8 to 7.4), the disease-free survival was 69% overall, and 75% if one patient with local recurrence after initial treatment elsewhere was excluded. Four patients died from distant metastases at a mean of 17 months (13 to 23). There were three complications which required operative intervention; one was a deep infection which required removal of the graft. The functional results gave a mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score of 85% (60% to 97%), a mean Toronto extremity salvage score of 86% (69% to 100%) and a mean Harris hip score of 92 (67 to 100).

We conclude that ECI grafting is a suitable form of treatment for localised and resectable pelvic Ewing’s sarcoma.

We have reviewed a group of patients with iliopsoas impingement after total hip replacement with radiological evidence of a well-fixed malpositioned or oversized acetabular component. A consecutive series of 29 patients (30 hips) was assessed. All had undergone a trial of conservative management with no improvement in their symptoms. Eight patients (eight hips) preferred continued conservative management (group 1), and 22 hips had either an iliopsoas tenotomy (group 2) or revision of the acetabular component and debridement of the tendon (group 3), based on clinical and radiological findings. Patients were followed clinically for at least two years, and 19 of the 22 patients (86.4%) who had surgery were contacted by phone at a mean of 7.8 years (5 to 9) post-operatively. Conservative management failed in all eight hips. At the final follow-up, operative treatment resulted in relief of pain in 18 of 22 hips (81.8%), with one hip in group 2 and three in group 3 with continuing symptoms. The Harris Hip Score was significantly better in the combined groups 2 and 3 than in group 1. There was a significant rate of complications in group 3. This group initially had better functional scores, but at final follow-up these were no different from those in group 2.

Tenotomy of the iliopsoas and revision of the acetabular component are both successful surgical options. Iliopsoas tenotomy provided the same functional results as revision of the acetabular component and avoided the risks of the latter procedure.

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 report positive and negative factors associated with the most commonly-used methods of reconstruction after pathological fracture of the proximal femur. The study was based on 142 patients treated surgically for 146 metastatic lesions between 1996 and 2003. The local rate of failure was 10.3% (15 of 146). Of 37 operations involving osteosynthetic devices, six failed (16.2%) compared with nine (8.3%) in 109 operations involving endoprostheses. Of nine cases of prosthetic failure, four were due to periprosthetic fractures and three to recurrent dislocation. In the osteosynthesis group, three (13.6%) of 22 reconstruction nails failed. The two-year risk of re-operation after any type of osteosynthesis was 0.35 compared with 0.18 after any type of endoprosthetic reconstruction (p = 0.07). Endoprosthetic reconstructions are preferable to the use of reconstruction nails and other osteosynthetic devices for the treatment of metastatic lesions in the proximal third of the femur.

Our aim was to determine if the height of the cup, lateralisation or the abduction angle correlated with functional outcome or survivorship in revision total hip replacement in patients with a previous diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip. A retrospective investigation of 51 patients (63 hips) who had undergone revision total hip replacement was performed. The mean duration of follow-up was 119 months. Forty-one patients (52 hips) were available for both determination of functional outcome and survivorship analysis. Ten patients (11 hips) were only available for survivorship analysis.

The height of the cup was found to have a statistically significant correlation with functional outcome and a high hip centre correlated with a worse outcome score. Patients with a hip centre of less than 3.5 cm above the anatomical level had a statistically better survivorship of the cup than those with centres higher than this. Restoration of the height of the centre of the hip to as near the anatomical position as possible improved functional outcome and survivorship of the cup.