Is the Direct Superior,Iliotibial Band-Sparing Approach Associated With Decreased Pain After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

Recently, the direct superior approach (DSA) has been introduced in total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the goal of limiting soft tissue dissection. This study's purpose was to use a visual pain diagram questionnaire to determine the location and severity of pain in patients undergoing THA via a DSA vs miniposterior approach (MPA).

Leg-Length Discrepancy After Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Are Modular Stems Superior?

We retrospectively reviewed data for 79 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty using cementless femoral stems at our center between September 2008 and November 2010. Two cohorts were included, one using MP (modular) femoral stems and the other using Wagner (monoblock) femoral stems. We assessed leg-length discrepancy (LLD) before and after revision and compared the occurrence of leg-length inequality between the 2 cohorts. We found that the incidence of LLD was high in revision hip arthroplasty and that leg shortening was more common than lengthening. Both acetabular and femoral sides contributed to postoperative LLD. Appropriate placement of the femoral components was most critical in adjusting LLD. We also found that compared with monoblock stems, modular stems made adjustment of postoperative leg length easier.     

Postoperative Opioid Consumption After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Three Surgical Approaches

BackgroundThe surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has the potential to affect the immediate postoperative recovery; however, there is limited published data comparing the 3 most common surgical approaches. The purpose of the study was to investigate postoperative pain and subsequent opioid consumption between surgical approaches (anterior—AA, lateral—LA, and posterior—PA) in those undergoing primary elective THA.MethodsA retrospective cohort study assessed patient demographics (age, sex, and body mass index), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, opioid naivety, operative details (anesthetic method, fixation method, and local infiltration analgesia), pain scores, and length of stay. Statistical analysis was performed with a 1-way analysis of variance 3 × 1 table with a P value < .05.ResultsA total of 560 patients were included in the analysis (335 females and 225 males). The cohort consisted of 179 AA, 178 LA, and 203 PA patients. The average postoperative opioid usage was 63.05 (standard deviation [SD] = 42.97), 79.81 (SD = 56.10), and 77.50 (SD = 54.52) oral morphine equivalent daily dose (oMEDD) for the AA, LA, and PA, respectively. The mean difference was 16.8 oMEDD lower in the AA compared with the LA (P < .01) and 14.5 oMEDD lower in the AA compared with the PA (P = .02).ConclusionThe direct anterior approach was associated with lower daily opioid usage and pain scores after elective THA in the early postoperative period. This represents a potential 21% reduction in daily opioid dosage when compared with LA patients and 18.7% reduction in PA patients.     

Late Dislocations After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is the Bearing a Factor?

Background

Dislocation is a leading cause of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although more common in the first few years after the procedure, dislocation can occur at any time. This study investigated the difference in late dislocation in ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings compared with metal-on-polyethylene and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in THA.

Editorial Commentary: Repair of Lateral Ankle Ligament: Is Arthroscopic Technique the Next Station?

Arthroscopic lateral ankle ligament repair (ALALR) is safe and effective, yet a review of the current literature does not show the superiority of ALALR over the open technique. ALALR is a relatively new procedure, and, in the future, it is likely that arthroscopic rather than open lateral ankle ligament repair will become the standard of care.     

Does Surgical Approach Influence the Natural History of the Unstable Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BackgroundDislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a significant complication that occurs in 0.3%-10% of cases with 13%-42% of patients requiring revision surgery. The literature has primarily focused on the dislocation risk associated with different surgical approaches. However, little is known about the natural history of the dislocated hip and whether surgical approach of the index THA is associated with further instability and revision surgery.MethodsThis is a retrospective, single-center, multi-surgeon consecutive case series of all patients who experienced THA dislocation from 2002 to 2020. Patients were excluded if the initial dislocation was secondary to infection or fracture. The natural history of the cohort as per approach was determined. Outcome measurements of interest were the number of dislocations; the treatment surrounding each dislocation; the necessity and type of revision; and the complications encountered.ResultsOf the 75 patients, 58 (77%) dislocated within 6 months following primary THA. The anterior group had greater odds of dislocation within 2 weeks post-THA compared to the lateral and posterior groups (P = .04). The mean number of dislocations per patient was significantly lower in the anterior (1.5 ± 0.7) compared to the lateral (2.4 ± 1.2) and posterior (2.1 ± 1.0) groups (P = .02). Revision surgery was needed in 30% (6/20) of patients in the anterior, 69% (25/36) of the posterior, and 68% (13/19) of the lateral groups (P = .01).ConclusionThis study illustrates that while primary THA dislocations happen earlier with the anterior approach, they are typically less complicated and have a lower risk of recurrent instability and revision surgery.     

Return to Sporting Activity After Total Hip Arthroplasty—A Survey of Members of the British Hip Society

Background

Total hip arthroplasty is increasingly performed in younger, more active patients. Thirty-five percent of patients are involved in sports preoperatively, and a desire to return to sporting activity is now a major expectation. Sporting activity potentially risks premature failure of the implant, and there is no consensus or guidelines among British or European surgeons performing total hip arthroplasty in sporting patients.

Editorial Commentary: Total Hip Arthroplasty After Hip Arthroscopy—Solution for the Failed Arthroscopy or a Matter of Pushing the Envelope and Questionable Indications

With the inevitable explosion of arthroscopic hip procedures being performed, the less frequent indications and failures are becoming prevalent enough to analyze. As with any procedure, failures occur and solutions are sought after. “Total hip arthroplasty after prior hip arthroscopy” is a statement that brings to mind several questions and comments. Yes, it is important to evaluate the impact of a prior arthroscopy on eventual total hip arthroplasty outcomes and complication rates. The bigger question when the arthroplasty is performed less than 2 years after hip arthroscopy, however, is “How did we get here?” The pivotal issue at hand might be one of pushing surgical indications a bit too forcefully on multiple fronts. It might be time to return to “Indications 101” to minimize an exponential increase regarding this particular topic with this particular failure timeline.     

Nerve Decompression Surgery After Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Are the Outcomes?

Background

The purpose of our study was to compare (1) muscle strength; (2) pain; (3) sensation; (4) various outcome measurement scales between post-total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients who had a sciatic nerve injury and did or did not receive decompression surgery for this condition; and (5) to compare these findings with current literature.

What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR

Background

More than 15,000 primary hip resurfacing arthroplasties have been recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with 884 primary procedures requiring revision for reasons other than infection, a cumulative percent revision rate at 12 years of 11%. However, few studies have reported the survivorship of these revision procedures.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the cumulative percent rerevision rate for revision procedures for failed hip resurfacings? (2) Is there a difference in rerevision rate among different types of revision or bearing surfaces?

Methods

The AOANJRR collects data on all primary and revision hip joint arthroplasties performed in Australia and after verification against health department data, checking of unmatched procedures, and subsequent retrieval of unreported procedures is able to obtain an almost complete data set relating to hip arthroplasty in Australia. Revision procedures are linked to the known primary hip arthroplasty. There were 15,360 primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties recorded of which 884 had undergone revision and this was the cohort available to study. The types of revisions were acetabular only, femoral only, or revision of both acetabular and femoral components. With the exception of the acetabular-only revisions, all revisions converted hip resurfacing arthroplasties to conventional (stemmed) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). All initial revisions for infection were excluded. The survivorship of the different types of revisions and that of the different bearing surfaces used were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Cumulative percent revision was calculated by determining the complement of the Kaplan-Meier survivorship function at that time multiplied by 100.

Results

Of the 884 revisions recorded, 102 underwent further revision, a cumulative percent rerevision at 10 years of 26% (95% confidence interval, 19.6–33.5). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision between acetabular revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [0.47–2], p = 0.888), femoral revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (HR, 1.00 [0.65–2], p = 0.987), and acetabular revision and femoral revision (HR, 1.06 [0.47–2], p = 0.893). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision when comparing different bearing surfaces (metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-ceramic HR, 0.46 [0.16–1.29], p = 0.141; metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.51 [0.15–1.76], p = 0.285; metal-on-metal versus metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.62 [0.20–1.89], p = 0.399; and metal-on-metal versus oxinium-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.53 [0.14–2.05], p = 0.356).

Conclusions

Revision of a primary hip resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with a high risk of rerevision. This study may help surgeons guide their patients about the outcomes in the longer term after the first revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in the Elderly—Acute vs Delayed Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundOptimum management for the elderly acetabular fracture remains undefined. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in this population does not allow early weight-bearing and has an increased risk of failure. This study aimed to define outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of an acetabular fracture and compared delayed THA after acetabular ORIF (ORIF delayed THA) and acute fixation and THA (ORIF acute THA).MethodsAll acetabular fractures in patients older than 60 years who underwent ORIF between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed (n = 85). Of those, 14 underwent ORIF only initially and required subsequent THA (ORIF delayed THA). Twelve underwent an acute THA at the time of the ORIF (ORIF acute THA). The ORIF acute THA group was older (81 ± 7 vs 76 ± 8; P < .01) but had no other demographic- or injury-related differences compared with the ORIF delayed THA group. Outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, complications, radiographic assessments (component orientation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification), and functional outcomes using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS).ResultsOperative time (P = .1) and length of stay (P = .5) for the initial surgical procedure (ORIF only or ORIF THA) were not different between groups. Four patients had a complication and required further surgeries; no difference was seen between groups. Radiographic assessments were similar between groups. The ORIF acute THA group had a significantly better OHS (40.1 ± 3.9) than the ORIF delayed THA group (33.6 ± 8.5) (P = .03).ConclusionIn elderly acetabulum fractures, ORIF acute THA compared favorably (a better OHS, single operation/hospital visit, equivalent complications) with ORIF delayed THA. We would thus recommend that in patients with risk factors for failure requiring delayed THA (eg, dome or roof impaction) that ORIF acute THA be strongly considered.     

Robotics Versus Navigation Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does the Use of Technology Yield Superior Outcomes?

BackgroundThe use of technology such as navigation and robotic systems may improve the accuracy of component positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA), but its impact on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the association between the use of intraoperative technology and PROMs in patients who underwent primary THA.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary THA between 2016 and 2020 and answered PROM questionnaires. Patients were separated into 3 groups depending on intraoperative technology utilization: computer-assisted navigation, robotic-assisted, or no technology (conventional) THA. Forgotten Joint Score-12 and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacemen scores were collected at various time points. Demographic differences were assessed with chi-square and analysis of variance. Mean scores between groups were compared using univariate analysis of covariance, controlling for all significant demographic differences.ResultsOf the 1960 cases identified, 896 used navigation, 135 used robotics, and 929 used no technology. There were significant statistical differences in one-year Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement scores (85.23 vs 85.95 vs 86.76, respectively; P = .014) and two-year Forgotten Joint Score-12 scores (64.72 vs 73.35 vs 74.63, respectively; P = .004) between the 3 groups. However, these differences did not exceed the mean clinically important differences. Length of stay was statistically longest for patients who underwent conventionally performed THA versus navigation and robotics (2.22 vs 1.46 vs 1.91, respectively; P < .001). Surgical time was significantly longer for cases performed using robotics versus navigation and conventionally (119.61 vs 90.35 vs 95.35, respectively; P < .001).ConclusionStatistical differences observed between all modalities are not likely to be clinically meaningful with regard to early patient-reported outcomes. Although intraoperative use of technology may improve the accuracy of implant placement, these modalities have not yet translated into improved early reported functional outcomes.Level III EvidenceRetrospective cohort.