Survivorship and Risk Factors for Re-Revision after Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged ≤55 Years

BackgroundThere is a relative paucity of literature on the outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in young patients. This study reports the survivorship and risk factors for re-revision in patients aged ≤55 years.MethodsWe identified 354 patients undergoing aseptic nononcologic rTHA at mean follow-up of 5 years after revision, with mean age of 48 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m², and 64% female. Thirty-five (10%) patients underwent at least 1 previous rTHA. The main indications for rTHA included wear/osteolysis (21%), adverse local tissue reaction (21%), recurrent instability (20%), acetabular loosening (16%), and femoral loosening (7%); and included acetabular component-only rTHA in 149 patients (42%), femoral component-only rTHA in 46 patients (13%), both component rTHA in 44 patients (12%), and head/liner exchanges in patients 115 (33%). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to measure survivorship free from re-revision THA, and multivariate regression was used to identify risk factors for re-revision THA.ResultsSixty-two patients (18%) underwent re-revision THA at the mean time of 2.5 years, most commonly for instability (37%), aseptic loosening (27%), and prosthetic joint infection (15%). The rTHA survivorship from all-cause re-revision and reoperation was 83% and 79% at 5 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing femoral component only (hazard ratio 4.8, P = .014) and head/liner exchange rTHA (hazard ratio 2.5, P = .022) as risk factors for re-revision THA.ConclusionAbout 1 in 5 patients aged ≤55 years undergoing rTHA required re-revision THA at 5 years, most commonly for instability. The highest risk group included patients undergoing head/liner exchanges and isolated femoral component revisions.     

Impact of Indication for Revision THA on Resource Utilization

BackgroundDemographic variables play an important role in outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Surgical and in-patient variables as well as outcomes vary between indications for rTHA. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the indication for the rTHA on costs and postoperative outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis investigated all patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTHA at an academic orthopaedic specialty hospital who had at least 1-year postoperative follow-up. In total, 654 patients were evaluated and categorized based on their indication for aseptic rTHA. Demographics, direct and total procedure costs, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were collected and compared between indications.ResultsYounger patients had the greatest leg length discrepancy (LLD) and older patients had the highest incidence of periprosthetic fracture (PPF) (P = .001). The greatest proportion of full revisions were found for LLD (16.7%) and head/polyethylene liner-only revisions for metallosis/adverse tissue reaction (100%). Operative time was significantly longest for LLD revisions and shortest for metallosis/adverse tissue reaction revisions (P < .001). Length of stay was longest for periprosthetic fracture and shortest for LLD and stiffness/heterotopic ossification (P < .001). Re-revision rate was greatest for implant failure and lowest for LLD. Total cost was highest for PPF (148.9%) and lowest for polyethylene liner wear (87.7%).ConclusionsPatients undergoing rTHA for indications such as PPF and aseptic loosening were associated with longer operative times, length of stay and higher total and direct costs. Therefore, they may need increased perioperative attention with respect to resource utilization, risk stratification, surgical planning, and cost-reducing measures.Level III EvidenceRetrospective Cohort Study.     

Low Revision Rates at More Than 10 Years for Dual-Mobility Cups Cemented Into Cages in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundInstability and aseptic loosening are the two main complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups were shown to counteract implant instability during rTHA. To our knowledge, no study evaluated the 10-year outcomes of rTHA using DM cups, cemented into a metal reinforcement ring, in cases of severe acetabular bone loss. We hypothesized that using a DM cup cemented into a metal ring is a reliable technique for rTHA at 10 years, with few revisions for acetabular loosening and/or instability.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of 77 rTHA cases with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky ≥ 2C) treated exclusively with a DM cup (NOVAE STICK; Serf, Décines-Charpieu, France) cemented into a cage (Kerboull cross, Burch-Schneider, or ARM rings). Clinical scores and radiological assessments were performed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The main endpoints were revision surgery for aseptic loosening or recurring dislocation.ResultsWith a mean follow-up of 10.7 years [2.1-16.2], 3 patients were reoperated because of aseptic acetabular loosening (3.9%) at 9.6 years [7-12]. Seven patients (9.45%) dislocated their hip implant, only 1 suffered from chronic instability (1.3%). Cup survivorship was 96.1% at 10 years. No sign of progressive radiolucent lines were found and bone graft integration was satisfactory for 91% of the patients.ConclusionThe use of a DM cup cemented into a metal ring during rTHA with complex acetabular bone loss was associated with low revision rates for either acetabular loosening or chronic instability at 10 years.     

Low-Dose Aspirin Is Safe and Effective for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Patients Undergoing Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundCurrently, there is no established universal standard of care for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in orthopedic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a protocol of 81-mg aspirin (ASA) bis in die (BID) is safe and/or effective in preventing VTE in patients undergoing rTHAs vs 325-mg ASA BID.MethodsIn 2017, a large academic medical center adopted a new protocol for VTE prophylaxis in arthroplasty patients at standard risk. Initially, patients received 325-mg ASA BID but switched to 81-mg ASA BID. A retrospective review (2011-2019) was performed to identify 1361 consecutive rTHA patients and their associated 90-day postoperative complications such as VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), as the primary outcome; and gastrointestinal and wound bleeding, acute periprosthetic joint infection, and mortality as the secondary outcome.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2017, 973 rTHAs were performed and 13 total VTE cases were diagnosed (1.34%). From 2017 to 2019, 388 rTHAs were performed with 3 total VTE cases identified (0.77%). Chi-squared analyses and logistic regression models showed no differences in rates or odds in postoperative PE (P = .09), DVT (P = .79), PE and DVT (P = .85), and total VTE (P = .38) using either dose. There were also no differences between bleeding complications (P = .14), infection rate (P = .46), and mortality (P = .53).ConclusionUsing a protocol of 81-mg of ASA BID is noninferior to 325-mg ASA BID and may be safe and effective in maintaining low rates of VTE in patients undergoing rTHA.     

Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Adequately Compensated by Work Relative Value Units

BackgroundPerforming revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) for periprosthetic joint infection is complex and may require greater time and resources than aseptic revision cases. Work relative value units (RVUs) assigned may not reflect the difference in actual work required for septic revision hip cases. The purpose of this study is to compare the work effort between aseptic and septic revision hip cohorts, and determine if physicians are appropriately compensated.MethodsData were collected through the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for the years 2005 to 2018 to identify all aseptic rTHA cases and septic rTHA cases. Work RVU, operation time, RVU per minute, and dollars per minute were assessed between the aseptic and septic revision hip cohorts. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for the study.ResultsThe mean operation times for aseptic and septic rTHAs were 146.12 and 173.24 minutes, respectively (P < .001). This resulted in an RVU per minute of 0.257 for the aseptic revision hip cohort compared to 0.212 for the septic cohort (P < .001). Aseptic rTHA cases were valued higher with a dollars per minute of 9.28, whereas septic rTHA cases were 7.65 (P < .001).ConclusionAlthough rTHA for infection is more complex and requires longer mean operative time than aseptic rTHA, physicians are not appropriately reimbursed for this challenging procedure. This inadequate RVU-based reimbursement for septic rTHA may deter physicians from performing these procedures, which could lead to decreased access to care for patients in need of rTHA for infection.     

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Rates,Predictors, and Reasons Vary by Surgical Indication

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is performed for different surgical indications. With increasing attention being focused to minimize readmission risk, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was used to assess 30-day readmissions after rTHA for 3 aseptic indications.MethodsPatients undergoing rTHA were identified in the 2013-2017 NSQIP and classified as being performed for osteolysis/aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation, or periprosthetic fracture. Rates and predictors of 30-day readmission were determined by indication. Reasons for readmission were also assessed as being either related or unrelated to the surgical site.ResultsOf 6104 patients meeting inclusion criteria, osteolysis/aseptic loosening represented 46% of the revisions (readmission rate: 6.2%), recurrent dislocation represented 33.2% (readmission rate: 10.9%), and periprosthetic fractures represented 20.9% (readmission rate: 9.3%). These readmission rates represented statistically significant variation across the 3 indications (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, demographic, procedural, and postoperative predictors of readmission varied by indication.The osteolysis/aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture cohorts had surgical site-related readmissions in 43.9% and 42.4% of readmitted cases, respectively. On the contrary, readmissions after rTHA performed for recurrent dislocation were mostly surgical site-related (63.3%) and driven primarily by a postoperative dislocation. Further multivariate analysis showed that the rTHA indication of recurrent dislocation itself was the strongest predictor (odds ratio, 3.34; P < .0001) of a postoperative dislocation leading to a 30-day readmission.ConclusionThirty-day readmissions varied from 6.2% to 10.9% based on surgical indication for aseptic rTHA. Reasons for readmission also differed across the 3 cohorts. These findings may aid postoperative care pathways and protocol optimization.     

A Modular Head-Neck Adapter System and Ceramic Heads in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Registry Study on 354 Implants

BackgroundFive- to 10-year outcomes of a modular head-neck adapter system with ceramic heads in revision hip arthroplasty on large populations are still lacking. A registry study about modular adapter system with Delta ceramic head in revisions was designed, aiming to assess (1) the survival rates of the device, (2) the reasons for re-revisions of the device, and (3) a comparison to factory assembled titanium sleeve and Delta head cohort in revision hips.MethodsUsing a regional arthroplasty registry, we investigated the modular adapter system with a ceramic head in revision hips. Demographics, implant features, and reasons for revision were recorded. Survival rates and reasons for re-revision were assessed. The modular adapter system with the ceramic ball was compared to a factory-assembled ceramic titanium-sleeved head in revisions, acting as a control group. There were 354 revisions included at a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 0 to 13).ResultsThe 5- and 7-year survival rates were 87.9% and 86.9%, respectively. Dislocations (2.8%) and cup aseptic loosening (4.2%) were the 2 most frequent reasons for re-revision. No breakage of the adapter system or the ceramic head occurred. A femoral neck failed (0.3%). No implant features, offset (P = .088) or skirted (P = .870) tapers, impacted on failures. No differences between the 2 cohorts were found regarding survival rates (P = .696) and reasons for re-revision (dislocations, P = .983; cup aseptic loosening, P = .296).ConclusionThe modular head neck adapter system with a ceramic head seems to be a valid option in revisions at 5 and 7 years, without additional risk of implant breakage in this registry.     

Dual-mobility cups in revision acetabular reconstructions: Short-term outcomes in high-risk patients for instability

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of dual-mobility (DM) cup systems for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in patients who had high risk for instability.MethodsWe prospectively followed up 34 hips of 30 patients (27 females, 3 males; mean age: 66.1 (range: 33 to 89) years) who underwent rTHA with DM cups for aseptic loosening in 23 hips, infection treatment as second or single stage in nine hips, and instability in two hips. Clinical functions of the patients were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and radiological migration or loosening of the DM cups were recorded. The survival of the components was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and failure was defined as any dislocation of the polyethylene (PE) insert, intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), aseptic loosening of any component or total hip system revision due to any reason.ResultsThe mean duration of follow-up was 3.52 (range: 2.05 to 6.26) years. There was one dislocation of PE insert (2.9%), which was treated with closed reduction. There were two (5.8%) re-revisions for cemented DM cup due to migration. There was one PE insert and head change due to subacute infection. The mean HHS increased from 42.8 ± 6.7 (range: 34 to 60) points preoperatively to 87.3 ± 5.8 (range: 75 to 98) points postoperatively. The cumulative survival rate of the DM cup system was 91.2% (95% CI: 81.6–100%) with any revision, 94.1% (95% CI: 86.2–100%) with aseptic loosening and %97.1 (%95 CI: 91.4–100%) with dislocation as the end point at 3.5 years.ConclusionDual-mobility cups may provide good stability and represent a good option for revision acetabular reconstruction in patients who have high risk for instability.Level of evidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study.     

Ten- to 16-Year Results of a Modern Cementless Dual-Mobility Acetabular Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to assess the radiographic results, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of a modern cementless dual-mobility cup (DMC) implant as a primary THA with a minimum of 10 years follow-up.MethodsThis study retrospectively assessed a series of 310 primary THAs using a modern-generation cementless DMC (Saturne acetabular cup) between April 2001 and December 2005 at a single center. Patients were followed prospectively clinically and radiographically after surgery. Hips with follow-up less than 120 months were excluded from the study (5 lost to follow-up and 167 deceased). In total, a cohort of 138 hips were included for preoperative and postoperative analysis with an average follow-up of 152.4 months. All complications were collected, and a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed.ResultsThere was a significant increase in the mean Harris and Postel-Merle d’Aubigne scores between preoperative and postoperative cohorts (P < .001). No loosening of the cup and no acetabular osteolysis were found at final follow-up. No prosthetic dislocation, no intraprosthetic dislocation, and no infections were reported. The survival curve of THA in the total cohort (N = 310) was about 98% at 10 years with 3 stem revisions for femoral fracture. One psoas impingement was also described.ConclusionThis study showed no acetabular component failure and no reported cases of acetabular osteolysis with this DMC acetabular component retention at 10 years. No prosthetic or intraprosthetic dislocation was reported.     

Direct Cementation of Dual Mobility Cups Into the Bony Acetabulum in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BackgroundCemented dual mobility cups (DMCs) are commonly used in combination with acetabular reinforcement devices. Indeed, according to literature, direct cementation of metal-backed acetabular components into the bony acetabulum remains controversial as this technique is potentially associated with increased rates of aseptic loosening. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of DMC cemented into the bony acetabulum in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsA total of 49 THA (48 patients, mean age 78 years [range, 51 to 91]) performed with direct cementation of a DMC into the bony acetabulum were prospectively included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). The radiographic outcome included measurement of component positioning and occurrence and progression of demarcation around the cemented DMC. Complications were reported with a particular attention to cemented fixation failure and aseptic loosening.ResultsAt a 7-year mean follow-up (range, 5 to 8), the pre-to postoperative HHS improved from 47 (range, 30 to 58) to 92 points (range, 80 to 98) (P < .01). Nonprogressive and focalized demarcations were observed in 7 THA (14%). Importantly, no progressive demarcation or DMC aseptic loosening was observed.ConclusionDirect cementation of DMC into the bony acetabulum ensured a stable fixation with no progressive demarcation or aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. Therefore, this technique can be selectively considered in primary THA, especially in elderly or frail patients to avoid potential mechanical failure of press-fit fixation due to altered bone quality or additional morbidity related to the use of acetabular reinforcement devices.     

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundIt is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening.MethodsWe included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years).ResultsMedian Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001.ConclusionPatients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.     

10-Year Cumulative Incidence and Indications for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Among Patients Who Have Sickle Cell Disease

BackgroundLiterature regarding total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes in sickle cell disease (SCD) is limited. Moreover, 10-year survivorship of SCD implants is unknown. This study aimed to observe 10-year cumulative incidence and indications for revision TKA in patients who did and did not have SCD.MethodsPatients who underwent primary TKA were identified using a large national database. The SCD patients were matched by age, sex, and a comorbidity index to a control cohort in a 1:4 ratio. The 10-year cumulative incidence rates were determined using Kaplan–Meier survival analyses. Multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazard modeling. Chi-squared analyses were conducted to compare indications for revision between cohorts. In total, 1,010 SCD patients were identified, 100,000 patients included in the unmatched control, and 4,020 patients included in the matched control.ResultsCompared to the unmatched control cohort, SCD patients exhibited higher 10-year all-cause revision (HR: 1.86; P < .001) with higher proportions of revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (P < .001), aseptic loosening (P < .001), and hematoma (P < .001). Compared to the matched control, SCD patients had higher 10-year all-cause revision (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.39; P = .034) with a higher proportion of revisions for PJI (P = .044), aseptic loosening (P = .003), and hematoma (P = .019).ConclusionIndependent of other comorbidities, SCD patients are more likely to undergo revisions for PJI, aseptic loosening, and hematoma compared to patients who do not have SCD. Due to the high-risk of these complications, perioperative and postoperative surgical optimization should be enforced in SCD patients.     

Surgeons Experience More Physiologic Stress and Strain During Revision Than Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) procedures are more complex than primary TKA and THA, but their physiologic burden to the surgeon has not been quantified. While rTKA and rTHA have longer operative times, it is unknown whether differences exist in stress and strain compared to primary TKA and primary THA. The study was conducted to elicit whether differences exist in surgeon physiological response while performing rTKA and rTKA compared to primary TKA and primary THA.MethodsWe evaluated a prospective cohort study of 70 consecutive cases (23 primary TKAs, 12 primary THAs, 16 rTKAs, and 19 rTHAs). Two high-volume fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons wore a smart vest that recorded cardiorespiratory data while performing primary THA, primary TKA, rTHA, and rTKA. Heart rate (beats/minute), stress index (correlates with sympathetic activation), respiratory rate (respirations/minute), minute ventilation (L/min), and energy expenditure (Calories) were collected for every case, along with patient body mass index (kilograms/meter²) and working operative time (minutes). T-tests were used to assess for differences between the two groups.ResultsCompared to primary TKA, performing rTKAs had a significantly higher surgeon stress index (17 versus 15; P = .035), heart rate (104 versus 99; P = .007), energy expenditure per case (409 versus 297; P = .002), and a significantly lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .006). Compared to primary THA, performing rTHA had a significantly higher energy expenditure per case (431 versus 307; P = .007) and trended towards having a higher surgeon stress index (16 versus 14; P = .272) and a lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .185), although it did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionSurgeons experience higher physiological stress and strain when performing rTKA and rTHA compared to primary TKA and primary THA. This study provides objective data on what many surgeons feel and should promote further research on the specific stress and strain felt by surgeons who perform revision arthroplasty procedures.     

Long-Term Wear-Related Complications of Cross-Linked Versus Conventional Polyethylene After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundHighly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners have been developed to address the wear-related problems associated with conventional polyethylene (CPE) such as osteolysis or aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this systematic meta-analysis, we compared the long-term efficacy in preventing radiological osteolysis and revision surgery between HXLPE and CPE.MethodsWe included 14 studies that compared HXLPE and CPE reporting the incidence of wear-related complications with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. We investigated 5 wear-related complications: osteolysis, excessive wear, linear wear rate, revision surgery due to wear, and progress of osteolysis/aseptic loosening. We conducted a pair-wise meta-analysis to estimate odds ratio (OR) and a proportional meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of each complication.ResultsAmong 1,175 THAs, 220 osteolysis and 78 wear-related revisions were detected. The use of HXLPE reduced the risk of overall osteolysis (OR 0.30; P = .001), excessive wear (OR 0.10; P < .001), linear wear rate (weighted mean difference 0.09; P < .001), the risk of overall wear-related revisions (OR 0.06; P < .001), and revisions due to aseptic loosening (OR 0.23; P = .015). As per the proportional meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of osteolysis, excessive wear, and the overall wear-related revision rate were 14%, 8%, and 3% in HXLPE and 25%, 33%, and 20% in CPE, respectively.ConclusionThe current evidence shows that HXLPE dramatically reduced the rate of osteolysis and wear-related revision surgery. However, as polyethylene wear and osteolysis still lead to revision surgery, ongoing clinical and retrieval studies are required to analyze long-term outcomes.     

A comparative and retrospective study of three hundred and twenty primary Charnley type hip replacements with a minimum follow up of ten years to assess wether a dual mobility cup has a decreased dislocation risk

Purpose

Mid- and long-term follow-up of Charnley total hip arthroplasty (THA) demonstrated good functional results with 85 % survivorship at 25-year follow-up. However, dislocation still remains an unsolved problem. Dislocation may occur throughout the patient’s and implant’s life. The aim of this study is to answer the question: does a dual mobility cup (DMC) decrease the dislocation risk?

Methods

We report comparative results at ten years of follow-up of two groups of primary cemented Charnley-type THA, one with a standard polyethylene cup (group 1, n = 215) and the other one with a DMC (group 2, n = 105).

Results

In group 1, 26 dislocations (12.9 %) occurred. In group 2 only one dislocation (0.9 %) occurred. This dislocation was successfully reduced by closed reduction, without any recurrence. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0018). In group 1, the reason for revision was recurrent dislocation in 21 cases. Five patients were revised for other reasons. The global revision rate was 12.9 %. In group 2, two patients needed revision surgery for aseptic loosening. The global revision rate was 2.1 %. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.054). The goal was reached for the patients of group 2 who had more risks factors for dislocation (age, aetiology, American Society of Anesthesiologists and Devane scores) than those of group 1.

Conclusions

When using a DMC, we observed a low rate of dislocation in primary THA (0.9 %). This surgical choice seems to be a safe and effective technique in Charnley-type THA, especially in a high-risk population.     

A Prophylactic Tibial Stem Reduces Rates of Early Aseptic Loosening in Patients with Severe Preoperative Varus Deformity in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundPatients with a preoperative varus deformity >8 degrees are at increased risk of aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty. This study analyzes the effect of a tibial stem on the rate of aseptic loosening in patients with a severe preoperative varus deformity.MethodsPatients with a preoperative varus deformity of >8 degrees and 2-year minimum follow-up with a stemmed tibial component (n = 67) were matched 1:2 to patients with a similar preoperative varus deformity with a standard tibial component (n = 134). Radiolucent lines were measured on the tibia at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System. Failure was defined as revision due to aseptic loosening of the tibial component. Outcomes were evaluated using Student’s t-tests and log-rank tests.ResultsPatients with tibial stems had greater preoperative deformity (12.9 vs 11.3 degrees, P = .004). There was no difference in postoperative alignment (1.7 vs 2.1 degrees varus, P = .25) or tibial component angle (1.8 vs 2.1 degrees varus, P = .33). Patients with stems were more likely to have more constraint (44.8% vs 1.5%, P < .001). Progression of radiolucent lines >2 mm was observed in 17.6% (23/134) vs 5.97% (4/67) of patients in the stem group (P = .03). Rates of aseptic loosening were lower in the stem group (0% vs 5.15%, P = .05).ConclusionDespite worse preoperative deformity and higher utilization of constraint, tibial stem use in patients with severe preoperative varus deformity resulted in lower rates of aseptic loosening. Prophylactic use of stems in these patients may help increase implant survival.     

Dual-mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty after femoral neck fractures: A retrospective study comparing outcomes between cemented and cementless fixation

IntroductionTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) after femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with an increased risk of dislocation. The goals of our study were (1) to determine dislocation and revision rates when dual-mobility cups (DMCs) are used in these patients, (2) to analyze clinical and radiographic outcomes, survivorship, complications and mortality rate, and (3) to compare results between cemented and cementless cups.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with FNF treated using DMC-THA between 2011 and 2018. A minimum 2-year follow-up was required for clinical and radiographic assessment. The clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Merlé D´Aubigné-Postel score (MDP). Radiolucent lines, osteolysis and cup loosening were analyzed.ResultsWe included 105 patients (105 hips) with a mean age of 75.5 years. There were no dislocations. One patient (1.0%) underwent cup revision at 39 months for aseptic cup loosening. The mean HHS and MDP were 80.5 and 14.2 respectively at a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. A higher MDP was found in patients with cementless rather than cemented cups (15.0 vs. 13.1; p = 0.006). Four patients had radiolucent lines > 1 mm, around cemented cups. At 6.8 years, estimated cup survival was 98.2% for revision for aseptic loosening and 97.3% for revision for any reason. The mortality rates were 6.7% at 1 year and 23.8% at last follow-up.ConclusionOur findings suggest that using DMC in THA for FNF may prevent dislocation with a low revision rate. Cementless cups had a higher MDP than cemented cups.     

Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Contemporary Monoblock Dual-Mobility Cup in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe efficacy of contemporary monoblock dual-mobility (DM) cups to prevent dislocations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well reported, but there is little published data on their mid- to long-term outcomes. The authors aimed at reporting the 10-year survival of a contemporary DM cup as well as its clinical and radiographic outcomes.MethodsFrom a retrospective consecutive multicentric series of 516 patients (541 hips) that received uncemented THA between June 2007 and June 2010, 6 patients (6 hips) had cup and stem revisions, 5 patients (5 hips) had isolated stem revision, and 2 patients (2 hips) had isolated insert revision. A total of 103 patients (111 hips) died with their original implants, and 41 patients (42 hips) were lost to follow-up. This left 358 patients (375 hips) for clinical assessment at a median follow-up of 8.7 years (range, 6.8-10.5 years), including 279 patients (290 hips) with postoperative radiographs. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine whether clinical outcomes are associated with patient or surgical factors.ResultsThe 10-year survival considering revision for aseptic loosening as end point was 100% for the cup and 99.2% for the stem. No dislocations were observed, and radiographic assessment revealed 1 acetabular granuloma (0.3%), but no radiolucencies nor fractures. The Harris hip score improved from 49.6 ± 15.5 to 85.2 ± 14.5, and the postoperative Oxford hip score was 19.2 ± 7.6. Multivariable analyses revealed that improvement in Harris hip score increased with cup diameter (beta, 1.28; P = .039).ConclusionOur data confirmed satisfactory midterm outcomes of uncemented THA using a contemporary DM cup, with no dislocations nor cup revisions due to aseptic loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, retrospective cohort study.     

High Rate of Re-Revision in Patients Less Than 55 Years of Age Undergoing Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThere are limited data on the outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty in young patients. We sought to characterize the re-revision-free survival and risk factors for re-revision in patients less than 55 years who underwent aseptic revision TKA.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 197 revision TKAs at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Mean age was 49 years; mean body mass index was 31 kg/m². Twenty-seven (14%) patients had at least 1 prior revision TKA. The most common indications for revision included instability (29%), arthrofibrosis (26%), and aseptic loosening (24%). Constraint included the following: 59 posterior-stabilized (30%), 123 varus-valgus constrained (62%), and 15 hinged (8%). Components revised included the following: 93 femur/tibia (47%), 68 polyethylene-only (35%), 19 femur-only (10%), and 17 other (9%). Survivorship free from re-revision was calculated via the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariate Cox proportional regression was utilized to identify risk factors for re-revision.ResultsSurvivorship free from any re-revision at 5 years was 80%. In the multivariate analysis, patients with a prior revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.78, P = .02), an isolated polyethylene exchange (HR = 3.0, P = .004), and a hinged prosthesis (HR = 3.47, P = .05) were significant risk factors for lower revision-free survival. Forty-two patients (21%) underwent re-revision, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection (7%), instability (6%), and aseptic loosening (5%). Re-revision occurred in 18/68 (26%) patients undergoing an isolated polyethylene exchange.ConclusionPatients less than 55 years undergoing revision TKA have a modest 5-year revision-free survival of 80%. Patients with prior revision TKAs (HR = 2.78), hinge type prostheses (HR = 3.47), and polyethylene-only revisions (HR = 3.0) had higher revision rates.