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)
Aims. Modular
Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the potentially increased risk of dislocation in patients with neurological disease who sustain a femoral neck fracture, as it is unclear whether they should undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). A secondary aim was to investgate whether
Aims.
Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While
Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of liner malseating in two commonly used
Aims. The benefit of a
Aims. Adverse spinal motion or balance (spine mobility) and adverse pelvic mobility, in combination, are often referred to as adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM). A stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt, and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Adverse SPM can create functional malposition of the acetabular components and hence is an instability risk. Adverse pelvic mobility is often, but not always, associated with abnormal spinal motion parameters. Dislocation rates for
Aims. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with
Aims. Modular
Aims. There is little information in the literature about the use of
Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate blood metal ion levels, leucocyte profiles, and serum cytokines in patients with a total hip arthroplasty (THA) involving modular
Aims.
The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA.Aims
Methods
Instability continues to be a troublesome complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patient-related risk factors associated with a higher dislocation risk include the preoperative diagnosis, an age of 75 years or older, high body mass index (BMI), a history of alcohol abuse, and neurodegenerative diseases. The goal of this study was to assess the dislocation rate, radiographic outcomes, and complications of patients stratified as high-risk for dislocation who received a dual mobility (DM) bearing in a primary THA at a minimum follow-up of two years. We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of DM THA performed between 2010 and 2014 at our institution (Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York) by a single, high-volume orthopaedic surgeon employing a single prosthesis design (Anatomic Dual Mobility (ADM) Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey). Patient medical records and radiographs were reviewed to confirm the type of implant used, to identify any preoperative risk factors for dislocation, and any complications. Radiographic analysis was performed to assess for signs of osteolysis or remodelling of the acetabulum.Aims
Materials and Methods
The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty:
Aims. In 2015, we published the results of our ceramic-on-metal (CoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between October 2007 and July 2009 with a mean follow-up of 34 months (23 to 45) and a revision rate of 3.1%. The aim of this paper is to present the longer-term outcomes. Methods. A total of 264 patients were reviewed at a mean of 5.8 years (4.6 to 7.2) and 10.1 years (9.2 to 10.6) to determine revision rate, pain, outcome scores, radiological analysis, and blood ion levels. Those who were unwilling or unable to travel were contacted by telephone. Results. The all-cause revision rate at six years was 3.1% (eight THAs), increasing to 8.8% (18 THAs) at ten years. Of these, there were four and then seven bearing-related revisions at six and ten years, respectively. There was a statistically significant deterioration in the visual analogue scale pain score and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) between six and ten years. There were 18 CoM THAs in 17 patients who had a cobalt or chromium level over 4 ppb and ten CoM THAs in nine patients who had a cobalt or chromium level higher than 7 ppb with a statistically significant increase in chromium levels only between the two timepoints. Overall, 84 stems (39.1%) had significant radiolucent lines at ten years compared to 65 (25.5%) at six years. Conclusion. When compared to the original review, there has been a significant deterioration in pain score, OHS, radiograph appearance, and, most critically, survival has fallen to 91.2%, which does not meet the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10 A* 95% threshold. Although this bearing is no longer on the market, 2.5% were bearing-related revisions, which have relevance to the discussion around modular
Aims. Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacements (PFEPRs) are the most common reconstruction option for osseous defects following primary and metastatic tumour resection. This study aimed to compare the rate of implant failure between PFEPRs with monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties and acetabular arthroplasties, and determine the optimum articulation for revision PFEPRs. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 233 patients who underwent PFEPR. The mean age was 54.7 years (SD 18.2), and 99 (42.5%) were male. There were 90 patients with primary bone tumours (38.6%), 122 with metastatic bone disease (52.4%), and 21 with haematological malignancy (9.0%). A total of 128 patients had monopolar (54.9%), 74 had bipolar hemiarthroplasty heads (31.8%), and 31 underwent acetabular arthroplasty (13.3%). Results. At a mean 74.4 months follow-up, the overall revision rate was 15.0%. Primary malignancy (p < 0.001) and age < 50 years (p < 0.001) were risk factors for revision. The risks of death and implant failure were similar in patients with primary disease (p = 0.872), but the risk of death was significantly greater for patients who had metastatic bone disease (p < 0.001). Acetabular-related implant failures comprised 74.3% of revisions; however, no difference between hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty groups (p = 0.209), or between monopolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.307), was observed. There was greater radiological wear in patients with longer follow-up and primary bone malignancy. Re-revision rates following a revision PFEPR was 34.3%, with
Aims. Patients with femoral neck fractures (FNFs) treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) have an almost ten-fold increased risk of dislocation compared to patients undergoing elective THA. The surgical approach influences the risk of dislocation. To date, the influence of differing head sizes and
Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of