Anterior and Anterolateral Approaches for THA Are Associated With Lower Dislocation Risk Without Higher Revision Risk

Background

Lack of consensus continues regarding the benefit of anteriorly based surgical approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocations for various approaches used in primary THAs from a community-based healthcare organization.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the incidence of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation for primary THA in a large community-based healthcare organization? (2) Does the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation vary by THA surgical approach?

Methods

The Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify primary THAs performed between April 1, 2001 and December 31, 2011. Endpoints were septic revisions, aseptic revisions, and dislocations. The exposure of interest was surgical approach (posterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, direct anterior). Patient, implant, surgeon, and hospital factors were evaluated as possible confounders. Survival analysis was performed with marginal multivariate Cox models. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. A total of 42,438 primary THAs were available for analysis of revision outcomes and 22,237 for dislocation. Median followup was 3 years (interquartile range, 1–5 years). The registry’s voluntary participation is 95%. The most commonly used approach was posterior (75%, N = 31,747) followed by anterolateral (10%, N = 4226), direct anterior (4%, N = 1851), and direct lateral (2%, N = 667).

Results

During the study period 785 hips (2%) were revised for aseptic reasons, 213 (0.5%) for septic reasons, and 276 (1%) experienced a dislocation. The revision rate per 100 years of observation was 0.54 for aseptic revisions, 0.15 for septic revisions, and 0.58 for dislocations. There were no differences in adjusted risk of revision (either septic or aseptic) across the different THA approaches. However, the anterolateral approach (adjusted HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.63, p = 0.002) and direct anterior approach (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22–0.87, p = 0.017) had a lower risk of dislocation relative to the posterior approach. There were no differences in any of the outcomes when comparing the direct anterior approach with the anterolateral approach.

Conclusions

Anterior and anterolateral surgical approaches had the advantage of a lower risk of dislocation without increasing the risk of early revision.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

How Have Alternative Bearings and Modularity Affected Revision Rates in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to be one of the most successful surgical procedures in the medical field. However, over the last two decades, the use of modularity and alternative bearings in THA has become routine. Given the known problems associated with hard-on-hard bearing couples, including taper failures with more modular stem designs, local and systemic effects from metal-on-metal bearings, and fractures with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, it is not known whether in aggregate the survivorship of these implants is better or worse than the metal-on-polyethylene bearings that they sought to replace.

Questions/purposes

Have alternative bearings (metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic) and implant modularity decreased revision rates of primary THAs?

Methods

In this systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, we used several Boolean search strings for each topic and surveyed national registry data from English-speaking countries. Clinical research (Level IV or higher) with ≥ 5 years of followup was included; retrieval studies and case reports were excluded. We included registry data at ≥ 7 years followup. A total of 32 studies (and five registry reports) on metal-on-metal, 19 studies (and five registry reports) on ceramic-on-ceramic, and 20 studies (and one registry report) on modular stem designs met inclusion criteria and were evaluated in detail. Insufficient data were available on metal-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-metal implants, and monoblock acetabular designs were evaluated in another recent systematic review so these were not evaluated here.

Results

There was no evidence in the literature that alternative bearings (either metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic) in THA have decreased revision rates. Registry data, however, showed that large head metal-on-metal implants have lower 7- to 10-year survivorship than do standard bearings. In THA, modular exchangeable femoral neck implants had a lower 10-year survival rate in both literature reviews and in registry data compared with combined registry primary THA implant survivorship.

Conclusions

Despite improvements in implant technology, there is no evidence that alternative bearings or modularity have resulted in decreased THA revision rates after 5 years. In fact, both large head metal-on-metal THA and added modularity may well lower survivorship and should only be used in select cases in which the mission cannot be achieved without it. Based on this experience, followup and/or postmarket surveillance studies should have a duration of at least 5 years before introducing new alternative bearings or modularity on a widespread scale.     

Does stem design influence component positioning in total hip arthroplasty using a minimal invasive posterolateral approach?

Purpose

Limited data exist for the reconstructive potential of short bone-preserving stems in THA using a minimal invasive posterolateral approach. Our study aim was to assess the effect of stem design on the reconstruction of hip offset and leg length in MIS posterolateral THA.

Methods

This retrospective consecutive single-surgeon study compares hip offset and leg length, as well as acetabular component positioning (cup anteversion; inclination) of 129 THAs with a cementless standard-length stem (Synergy®) and 143 THAs with a cementless short bone-preserving stem (Trilock®).

Results

In reference to the contralateral side, the mean difference in hip offset was 0.9 mm (p = 0.067) for the standard stem and 0.1 mm (p = 0.793) for the short stem, respectively. Leg-length discrepancy was 0.7 mm (Synergy®) and 0.9 mm (Trilock®), respectively. A total of 233 (86 %) acetabular components fell within the target zone for anteversion and inclination.

Conclusion

Accurate component positioning in MIS posterolateral approach THA is possible and is not influenced by the type of stem.     

Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis

Purpose

Component orientations and positions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are important parameters in restoring hip function. However, measurements using plain radiographs and 2D computed tomography (CT) slices are affected by patient position during imaging. This study used 3D CT to determine whether contemporary THA restores native hip geometry.

Methods

Fourteen patients with unilateral THA underwent CT scan for 3D hip reconstruction. Hip models of the nonoperated side were mirrored with the implanted side to quantify the differences in hip geometry between sides.

Results

The study demonstrated that combined hip anteversion (sum of acetabular and femoral anteversion) and vertical hip offset significantly increased by 25.3° ± 29.3° (range, −25.7° to 55.9°, p = 0.003) and 4.1 ± 4.7 mm (range, −7.1 to 9.8 mm, p = 0.009) in THAs.

Conclusions

These data suggest that hip anatomy is not fully restored following THA compared with the contralateral native hip.     

Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Prostheses Results in Marked?Reduction of Blood Cobalt and Chromium Ion Concentrations

Background

High revision rates attributable to adverse reactions to metal debris have been reported for total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with metal-on-metal implants and hip resurfacings. The effect of revision on blood metal ion levels is described only in small series, the clinical results of revisions have been contradictory, and concerns regarding component loosening have been presented.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) Did revision surgery result in a reduction to normal for whole blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels (2) What changes to the Oxford Hip Score were observed after revision of these hips with metal-on-metal implants? (3) Were there radiologic signs of component loosening observed on 1-year followup radiographs?

Methods

Between September 2010 and April 2013, 154 patients (166 hips) who had THAs with implantation of the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) system and 44 patients (49 hips) who had hip resurfacings of the ASR™ implant underwent revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris at our institution, after recall of these components in August 2010. General indications for revision of these implants included a symptomatic hip and/or a predominantly solid pseudotumor seen on cross-sectional imaging. Since recall, patients were systematically followed after revision with Oxford Hip Score questionnaires, blood Co and Cr measurements (analyzed from whole blood with dynamic reaction-cell inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry), and plain radiographs at 2 and 12 months after revision surgery, and thereafter at 2-year intervals. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative blood Co and Cr values were available for 93% (185 of 198 patients), Oxford Hip Score for 76% (151 of 198 patients), and plain radiographs for all patients.

Results

Whole-blood levels of Co decreased below the 7 ppb cut-off value in all patients with revision of unilateral THA or resurfacing, however, blood Cr levels remained elevated in four of 90 patients (4%) in the unilateral THA group and four of 34 patients (12%) in the unilateral resurfacing group. All had ultrahigh (> 40 ppb) preoperative Cr levels. Cr levels remained elevated in six of the patients at the 3-year followup. The median Oxford Hip Score improved from preoperative to 1-year postoperative in the unilateral THA group (38 [4–48] to 40 [9–48], p = 0.049) and in the unilateral hip resurfacing group (37.5 [9–48] to 44 [13–48], p = 0.011). No improvement was seen in patients who had bilateral THAs (37 [14–48] to 41 [9–48], p = 0.196). Only minor radiographic abnormalities were seen, with no suspicion of component loosening.

Conclusions

Metal-on-metal THAs and resurfacings have raised concerns and an emerging rate of revisions has been seen for many different metal-on-metal hip prostheses worldwide. Revision surgery seems to be effective for removal of the systemic metal ion burden, even though blood Cr remained elevated in a few patients for more than 3 years after removal of the metal-on-metal implant. In patients with bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacements the remaining metal-on-metal implant still supplies the body with Co and Cr ions after a unilateral revision, and therefore followup should be continued. Adverse reactions to metal debris do not seem to compromise implant ingrowth after revision surgery. However, as some of our patients still had a poor functional outcome at 12 months after revision surgery, additional research is warranted to determine the optimal time for patients to undergo revision surgery for suspected adverse reactions to metal debris.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Dual mobility acetabular component in revision total hip arthroplasty for persistent dislocation: no dislocations in 50 hips after 1–5 years

Background

A dual mobility cup has the theoretic potential to improve stability in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and mid-term cohort results are favorable. We hypothesized that use of a new-generation dual mobility cup in revision arthroplasty prevents dislocation in patients with a history of recurrent dislocation of the THA.

Materials and methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving an isolated acetabular revision with a dual mobility cup for recurrent dislocation of the prosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were performed with dislocation as a primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as a secondary endpoint.

Results

Forty-nine consecutive patients (50 hips) were included; none of the patients was lost to follow-up. The median follow-up was 29 months (range 12–66 months). Two patients died from unrelated causes. Survival after 56 months was 100 % based on dislocation and 93 % (95 % CI 79–98 %) based on re-revision for any reason. Radiologic analysis revealed no osteolysis or radiolucent lines around the acetabular component during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The dual mobility cup is an efficient solution for instability of THA with a favorable implant survival at 56 months.

Level of evidence

Level 4, retrospective case series.     

Satisfying Outcomes Scores and Survivorship Achieved With Impaction Grafting for Revision THA in Young Patients

Background

The increasing number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in younger patients will inevitably generate larger numbers of revision procedures for this specific group of patients. Unfortunately, no satisfying revision method with acceptable survivorship 10 years after revision has been described for these patients so far.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to (1) analyze the clinical outcome; (2) complication rate; (3) survivorship; and (4) radiographic outcome of cemented revision THA performed with impaction bone grafting (IBG) on both the acetabular and femoral sides in one surgery in patients younger than 55 years old.

Methods

During the period 1991 to 2007, 86 complete THA revisions were performed at our institution in patients younger than 55 years. In 34 of these 86 revisions (40%), IBG was used on both the acetabular and femoral sides in 33 patients. Mean patient age at revision surgery was 46.4 years (SD 7.6). No patient was lost to followup, but three patients died during followup. None of the deaths were related to the revision surgery. The mean followup for the surviving hips was 11.7 years (SD 4.6). We also analyzed complication rate.

Results

The mean Harris hip score improved from 55 (SD 18) preoperatively to 80 points (SD 16) at latest followup (p = 0.009). Six hips underwent a rerevision (18%): in four patients, both components were rerevised; and in two hips, only the cup was revised. Patient 10-year survival rate with the endpoint of rerevision for any component for any reason was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%–95%) and with the endpoint of rerevision for aseptic loosening, the survival rate was 97% (95% CI, 80%–100%). In total six cups were considered radiographically loose, of which four were rerevised. Three stems were radiographically loose, of which none was rerevised.

Conclusions

IBG is a valuable biological revision technique that may restore bone stock in younger patients. Bone stock reconstruction is important, because these patients likely will outlive their revision implants. Bone reconstruction with impaction grafting may facilitate future revisions.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) implantations between different countries in terms of THA number per inhabitant, age, and procedure type and to compare the survival curve including all THAs using hip arthroplasty registers.

Methods

THA registers were compared between different countries with respect to the number of primary implantations per inhabitant and age, procedure type and survival curve. We performed a literature search for all national hip arthroplasty registers providing annual reports for 2009 or, if not available, a more recent period. The data from these reports were analysed in terms of number, age distribution and procedure type of primary THAs and survival curves.

Results

We identified nine hip arthroplasty registers, which comprised sufficient data to be included. A large variation was found in the annual number of primary THA implantations per inhabitant. The procedure type varied greatly as well, e.g. in Sweden 67 % are cemented THAs whereas in Emilia-Romagna (Italy) 89 % are cementless THAs.

Conclusions

This study revealed large differences in terms of the annual number of primary THAs per inhabitant and primary THA procedure type across countries. These data can be used to rank local primary THA implantations within an international context.     

Similar Clinical Outcomes for THAs With and Without Prior Periacetabular Osteotomy

Introduction

Some patients opt to undergo conversion to a THA for continued pain or progression of hip arthritis after periacetabular osteotomy. Whether patients are at greater risk for postoperative complications, revision THA, poor clinical outcomes, or compromised radiographic results after periacetabular osteotomy is debatable.

Questions/purposes

When compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent THAs for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) without previous periacetabular osteotomy, we asked whether a THA after a periacetabular osteotomy has (1) a higher complication rate, (2) a higher likelihood of resulting in revision THA, (3) comparable improvements in Harris hip score, and (4) comparable radiographic results.

Patients and Methods

A multicenter retrospective review of 562 patients undergoing 645 periacetabular osteotomies was performed. Twenty-three hips in 22 patients underwent a THA after periacetabular osteotomy. The patients were matched for age, sex, and BMI with 23 hips in 23 patients with DDH undergoing THA without a history of periacetabular osteotomy. Minimum followup for both groups of patients was 2 years (mean, 10 ± 4 years and 6 ± 4 years, respectively). Comparisons were made to answer the study questions based on a retrospective review from prospectively maintained registries of clinical and radiographic information at two participating centers.

Results

With the numbers available, there was no difference in complication or revision rates between the two groups (p = 0.489 and 1.000, respectively); however, a post hoc power analysis showed our study was underpowered to detect a difference in the rate of postoperative complications or revision THA. There was marked improvement in Harris hip score with THA after periacetabular osteotomy (p < 0.001) and THA for DDH (p < 0.001), but there was no difference (p = 0.265) in the Harris hip score at final followup between either group. The acetabular component was placed at a mean of 17° more retroversion during THA after periacetabular osteotomy compared with THA for DDH (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

This study did not detect any differences in the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing THA after periacetabular osteotomy done with a modern abductor-sparing approach when compared with a matched cohort undergoing THA for DDH. However, even with patients tallied across two high-volume centers during nearly 15 years, our study was underpowered to detect potentially important differences between the THA after periacetabular osteotomy group and the THA for DDH group. The data in this report are suitable as pilot data for future studies and for systematic reviews. Larger multicenter studies are needed to understand how the technical challenges of THA after periacetabular osteotomy affect postoperative complications and revision THA.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.