Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution.

Aims

This single-centre observational study aimed to describe the results of extensive bone impaction grafting of the whole acetabular cavity in combination with an uncemented component in acetabular revisions performed in a standardized manner since 1993.

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis.

At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock.

In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040).

The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24.

The conventional method for reconstructing acetabular bone loss at revision surgery includes using structural bone allograft. The disadvantages of this technique promoted the advent of metallic but biocompatible porous implants to fill bone defects enhancing initial and long-term stability of the acetabular component. This paper presents the indications, surgical technique and the outcome of using porous metal acetabular augments for reconstructing acetabular defects.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:103–8.

Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

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

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients

Aims. Pelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct. Methods. We included 53 cup-cage construct (51 patients) implants used for hip revision procedures for pelvic discontinuity between January 2003 and January 2022 in this retrospective review. Mean age at surgery was 71.8 years (50.0 to 92.0; SD 10.3), 43/53 (81.1%) were female, and mean follow-up was 6.4 years (0.02 to 20.0; SD 4.6). Patients were implanted with a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage (n = 12) or a TMARS cage (n = 40, all Zimmer Biomet). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on preoperative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Results. The five-year all-cause survival for cup-cage reconstruction was 73.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4 to 85.4), while the ten- and 15-year survival was 63.7% (95% CI 46.8 to 80.6). Survival due to aseptic loosening was 93.4% (95% CI 86.2 to 100.0) at five, ten, and 15 years. The rate of revision for aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation was 3/53 (5.7%), 7/53 (13.2%), and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. The mean leg length discrepancy improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 18.2 mm (0 to 80; SD 15.8) to 7.0 mm (0 to 35; SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. The horizontal and vertical hip centres improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 9.2 cm (5.6 to 17.5; SD 2.3) to 10.1 cm (6.2 to 13.4; SD 2.1) and 9.3 cm (4.7 to 15.8; SD 2.5) to 8.0 cm (3.7 to 12.3; SD 1.7), respectively. Conclusion. Cup-cage reconstruction provides acceptable outcomes in the management of pelvic discontinuity. One in four constructs undergo revision within five years, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):66–73

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

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

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

Aims. Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors. Methods. We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip PJI who underwent a staged THA revision performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. Results. Our staged exchange practice shows poor results, which means a 42% mechanical spacer failure rate, and a 20% recurrent infection rate over the two years average follow-up period. Moreover, we found a high rate of spacer dislocation (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to the previous literature. Our findings stress that the majority of spacer complications and failures is reflecting a population with high comorbid burden, highlighted by the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Lee score associations, as well as the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney, or hepatic chronic conditions. Conclusion. Our experience of a two-stage hip exchange revision noted important complication rates associated with high failure rates of polymethylmethacrylate spacers. These findings must be interpreted in the light of the patient’s comorbidity profiles, as the elective population for staged exchange has an increasing comorbid burden leading to poor results. In order to provide better results for this specific population, our conclusion suggests that comparative strategy studies are required to improve our therapeutic indication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):485–494

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA.

Aims

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty.

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Aims

Pelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Aims

Fixation techniques used in the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) that allow continued growth of the femoral neck, rather than inducing epiphyseal fusion in situ, have the advantage of allowing remodelling of the deformity. The aims of this study were threefold: to assess whether the Free-Gliding (FG) SCFE screw prevents further slip; to establish whether, in practice, it enables lengthening and gliding; and to determine whether the age of the patient influences the extent of glide.

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims

The aims of the study were to report for a cohort aged younger than 40 years: 1) indications for HRA; 2) patient-reported outcomes in terms of the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS); 3) dislocation rate; and 4) revision rate.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).