Does a collar improve the immediate stability of uncemented femoral hip stems in total hip arthroplasty? A bilateral comparative cadaver study

The aim of this study was to compare the immediate stability of collared vs collarless uncemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. A bilateral comparative study of 20 cadavers (40 hips: 20 collarless, 20 collared) was performed. Forces in the vertical and horizontal planes required to initiate subsidence of femoral stem and subsequent femoral fracture were measured. In vertical plane, subsidence began at an average force of 3129 ± 494 N for collarless stems and 6283 ± 3584 N for collared stems (P = .02). Fracture occurred at a significantly higher force for collared stems (P = <.001). In horizontal plane, subsidence began at an average force of 540 ± 170 N for collarless stems and 678 ± 206 N for collared stems (P = .01). Fracture occurred at a significantly higher force for collared stems (P = .005). Collared uncemented stems have significantly greater immediate stability than collarless. They are able to withstand greater vertical and horizontal forces before the initiation of subsidence and subsequent fracture.     

Cemented Polished Tapered Stems Have Lower Revision Rates Than Commonly Used Cementless Implant up to 17 Years of Follow-Up: An Analysis of 201,889 Total Hip Replacements From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BackgroundData assessing femoral stems may be influenced by grouping together matt and polished stems, despite their differing reported survivorship. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in revision rates between commonly used cemented and cementless stems when polished tapered stems are assessed independently of matt stems.MethodsAustralian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data from 1999 to 2019 were used to assess difference in revision rates between the 5 most commonly implanted femoral cemented and cementless stems for osteoarthritis. Cemented matt femoral stems, stems using line-to-line cementing techniques and procedures using non-cross-linked polyethylene, large head (>32 mm) metal-on-metal bearing surfaces or exchangeable necks were excluded. Cumulative percent revision was used to help compare survivorship between stems.ResultsThere were 201,889 total hip replacements meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50.0% were cemented and 50.0% cementless. Cemented stems had a lower rate of revision at all time points compared to cementless stems. This was most significant during the first 2 weeks (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.58, P < .001) compared to 2 weeks postoperatively and onwards (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.90, P < .001). A subanalysis of head size, bearing type, and surgeon volume further supported the use of a cemented stem.ConclusionCommonly used cemented polished tapered stems have a lower revision rate when compared to commonly used cementless prostheses, and are recommended in all age groups for both low-volume and high-volume surgeons especially when head size 32 mm or smaller is used.     

The Influence of Dorr Type and Femoral Fixation on Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty for Acute Femoral Neck Fractures: A Multicenter Study

BackgroundThe American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines report moderate evidence for cementing femoral stems for hip fractures, mainly derived from hemiarthroplasty literature. This is the first large, nonregistry study examining the influence of femoral fixation, implant type, patient characteristics, and radiographic factors on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) for acute femoral neck fractures.MethodsA multicenter retrospective study was performed of 709 THA cases (199 cemented, 510 cementless) for femoral neck fractures from 2006 to 2020 at three large academic institutions. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and radiographs were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated for multiple outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with P ≤ .05 denoting significance.ResultsCementless stems had a higher all-cause aseptic femoral revision rate (5.1 versus 0.5%, P = .002) and periprosthetic femoral fracture rate (4.3 versus 0%, P = .001). Each successive Dorr type had a higher fracture rate with cementless implants: 2.3%, 3.7%, and 15.9% in Dorr A, B, and C, respectively (P < .001). Logistic regression analyses confirmed that cementless stems (P = .02) and Dorr C bone (P = .001) are associated with periprosthetic fractures; collared implants and prophylactic cables did not protect against fractures. There was no difference in rates of dislocation, septic revision, or mortality between groups.ConclusionCementless stems during THA for femoral neck fractures have a higher aseptic femoral revision rate, specifically for periprosthetic fractures. Dorr C bone was particularly prone with an alarmingly high fracture rate. All fractures occurred in cementless cases, suggesting that cemented stems may minimize this complication.Level of EvidenceIII.     

A Role for Modern Primary Cementless Femoral Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundIn revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases with preserved femoral metaphyseal bone, tapered proximally porous-coated “primary” femoral stems may be an option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss undergoing revision THA with either a primary metaphyseal-engaging cementless stem or a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 70 patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss who underwent femoral revision. 35 patients who were revised using a primary cementless femoral stem were compared with 35 patients who underwent femoral revision using a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists. Clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared over an average follow-up of 2.9 years (SD 1.4).ResultsRevision THA was most commonly performed for periprosthetic joint infection (N = 27, 38.6%). The groups were similar with regards to Paprosky femoral classification (P = .56), length of stay (P = .68), discharge disposition (P = .461), operative time (P = .20), and complications (P = .164). There were no significant differences between primary and revision femoral stem subsidence (0.12 vs. 0.75 mm, P = .18), leg length discrepancy (2.3 vs. 4.05 mm, P = .37), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr (73.1 [SD 21.1] vs. 62.8 [SD 21.7], P = .088). No patient underwent additional revision surgery involving the femoral component.ConclusionUse of modern primary cementless femoral stems is a viable option for revision hip arthroplasty in the setting of preserved proximal femoral metaphyseal bone. Outcomes are not inferior to those of revision stems and offer potential benefits.     

Incidence,Risk Factors,and Outcome of Ceramic-On-Ceramic Bearing Breakage in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundCeramic-on-ceramic bearing breakage is a rare but significant complication of total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to identify risk factors for breakage and to determine the outcome of different revision options.MethodsAll ceramic-on-ceramic primary total hip arthroplasty procedures reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2019 were included. Procedures were subdivided into alumina or mixed ceramic (alumina/zirconia). All breakages were identified. The association between ceramic type and head size was assessed. Subsequent revision rates were compared and cause of revision assessed.ResultsThere were 23,534 alumina and 71,144 mixed ceramic procedures. Breakage was the reason for 1^st revision in 84 alumina (5.27% of all revisions and 0.36% of procedures) and 56 mixed ceramic procedures (2.46% of all revisions; 0.08% of procedures). Alumina had a higher breakage rate than mixed ceramic (HR 2.50 (95% CI 1.75, 3.59), P < .001), and breakage was higher for 36-38mm head sizes using alumina (HR 2.84 (1.52, 5.31), P = .001). 17.8% of 2^nd revisions occur by 3 years, due to dislocation, infection, metal-related pathology, and loosening. A neck adapter sleeve did not reduce 2^nd revisions. Numbers were too low to compare revision bearing surface options.ConclusionCeramic breakage has reduced with mixed ceramics but has a 0.79/1000 incidence at 15-year follow-up. It is unclear what the risk factors are for modern ceramics with increasing head size a risk for alumina only. Risk of 2^nd revision is high and occurs early. The optimal revision option is unknown.     

Inadequate Metadiaphyseal Fill of a Modern Taper-Wedge Stem Increases Subsidence and Risk of Aseptic Loosening: Technique and Distal Canal Fill Matter!

BackgroundAdequate interference fit and mechanical stability through optimal surgical technique are essential to prevent subsidence and loosening in cementless total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of surgical technique on radiographic subsidence and subsequent stability of a modern taper-wedge cementless stem.MethodsA retrospective review of 250 consecutive cementless primary total hip arthroplasties performed by 2 surgeons was completed. Surgeon A vigorously broached, maximizing the mediolateral stem dimension and confirmed final broach stability with a torsional test, whereas Surgeon B did not. All patients received identical taper-wedge stems. Preoperative bone morphology (canal flare index), postoperative subsidence, and canal fill were radiographically assessed.ResultsCanal flare index was not different between groups (P = .747). There was significantly less subsidence at 1 month for Surgeon A (0.3 vs 1.3 mm, P < .001). Additional subsidence at 1 year occurred in only 0.8% of Surgeon A (1/119) compared to 51.6% of Surgeon B stems (33/64, P < .001). Surgeon technique and canal fill measured at 60 mm below the lesser trochanter were the only variables predictive for subsidence, where Surgeon A and B had a mean canal fill of 95% and 86%, respectively. Surgeon B had 2 cases of aseptic loosening (2%) at 2 and 3 years postoperatively.ConclusionThese observations support that maximizing mediolateral canal fill and avoiding under-sizing the femoral implant with meticulous broaching technique minimizes subsidence and optimizes stability of modern cementless taper-wedge stems. Failure to optimize canal fill with appropriate broaching and surgical technique may predispose femoral components to failure from aseptic loosening.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Modular Cementless Femoral Stem

We retrospectively reviewed 123 patients who underwent cementless THA with modular femoral stem designs for revision THA or conversion of failed ORIF and found 75 patients available for analysis. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) improved from 52 ± 14 to 86 ± 11 (P < 0.001). The femoral stem was re-revised in eight patients (11%). The mean time to re-revision was 1.1 years (0.13–2.54). Reasons for re-revision included infection (n = 5, 7%), aseptic loosening (n = 2, 3%) and significant pain (n = 1, 1%). There were no failures of the modular junctions. PC stems had an increased rate of intraoperative fractures (PC 28% vs. STS 9%, P = 0.04). Modular cementless femoral stems provide acceptable mid-term results in revision THA.     

Hip Arthroplasty Femoral Stem Designs and Their Association With Early Postoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

BackgroundPeriprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially those in contact with the diaphyseal stem, carry high morbidity. This study evaluated how stem design influences the risk of early Vancouver B PFF or other PFF requiring operative intervention after THA.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective study of 3,433 primary cementless THAs performed from 2014 to 2021 included 2,302 single-taper (micro M/L [n = 1,169]; M/L [n = 1,133]) and 1,131 double-taper (fit-and-fill [n = 420]; compaction-collared [n = 711]) stems. Mean follow-up was 2.2 years (range, 0.3 to 6.5 years). Primary outcomes were Vancouver B and surgically treated postoperative PFFs among differing femoral stems. Secondary outcomes included rates of intraoperative and postoperative Vancouver A and C PFFs.ResultsForty five postoperative PFFs (1.3%) occurred within 8.8 weeks (median), 25 of which were Vancouver B (0.7%) and 20 total PFFs that required operative intervention (0.6%). Compaction-collared stems had a decreased risk of Vancouver B (hazard ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.97 P = .044) and any surgically treated PFF (hazard ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval: 0.01-0.95; P = .037). Intraoperative PFFs were most common with fit-and-fill stems (3.6%, P < .001) and Vancouver A with compaction-collared stems (1.8%, P < .001). The cohort with PFF had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (P = .004), more women (P = .001), more Dorr A or C femora (P = .013), and more posterior or lateral surgical approaches compared to those without PFF (P ≤ .001).ConclusionAfter controlling for confounding variables, compaction-collared stems had a significantly lower risk of postoperative Vancouver B and PFF requiring operative treatment than single-taper and double-taper stems.     

Bicortical Contact Predicts Subsidence of Modular Tapered Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundWe describe the intraoperative parameters that affect stem subsidence rates in tapered modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We also determine the effect of the stem bicortical contact on subsidence rates and whether there is a minimum threshold bicortical contact that must be achieved to avoid the complication of subsidence.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study consisting of 109 hips in 105 patients (53 males and 52 females) at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. All revisions were carried out for Paprosky type 3A and 3B femoral deficits. Clinical outcomes included the indication for revision, aseptic re-revision surgery, specifications of the stem inserted, and specifications of the femoral head and acetabular components implanted. Radiographic outcome measures included subsidence (mm) and bicortical contact (mm).ResultsUsing multivariate regression analysis, 3 parameters were associated with an increased rate of stem subsidence. A reduced bicortical contact distance (P < .001) and a stem length of ≤155 mm (P < .001) were both associated with higher subsidence rates. We also demonstrated a novel threshold of 20-mm bicortical contact which must be achieved to significantly reduce subsidence rates in these modular femoral stems for revision THA.ConclusionSubsidence rates of modular tapered femoral stems for revision THA can be significantly reduced by increasing the initial bicortical contact of the stem within the diaphysis and the overall length of the femoral stem >155 mm. We describe a minimum threshold bicortical contact distance of 20 mm that should ideally be exceeded to significantly reduce the risk of stem subsidence within the femoral canal.     

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Dislocation and Aseptic Causes Between Dual Mobility and Large Femoral Head Bearings in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With Subanalysis by Acetabular Component Size: An Analysis of 106,163 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BackgroundDual mobility (DM) and large femoral head bearings (≥36 mm) both decrease the risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited comparable data in primary THA. This study compared the revision rates for dislocation and aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads and subanalyzed by acetabular component size.MethodsData from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2008 (the year of first recorded DM use) to December 2019. All DM and large femoral head bearings were identified. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for dislocation and for all aseptic causes. The results were adjusted by age, sex, and femoral fixation. A subanalysis was performed stratifying acetabular component diameter <58 m and ≥58 mm.ResultsThere were 4942 DM and 101,221 large femoral head bearings recorded. There was no difference in the CPR for dislocation (HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 1.13), P = .138) or aseptic causes (HR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.70, 1.18), P = .457). When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduced the CPR for dislocation in acetabular component diameter <58 mm (HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.00), P = .049). There was no difference for diameter ≥58 mm. There was no difference in aseptic revision when stratified by acetabular component diameter.ConclusionThere is no difference in revision rates for dislocation or aseptic causes between DM and large femoral heads in primary THA. When stratified by acetabular component size, DM reduces dislocation for acetabular component diameter <58 mm.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Long-Term Results of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modern Extensively Porous-Coated Femoral Stem

BackgroundThe use of an extensively porous-coated uncemented cobalt-chrome monoblock femoral stem for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well established with excellent mid-term results. The aim of this study is to report the long-term survivorship of these implants in femoral stem revisions.MethodsThis is a long-term retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 55 femoral stem revisions in 55 patients using a contemporary, cementless extensively porous-coated cobalt-chrome monoblock stem. All patients between 2001 and 2006 who underwent first time femoral stem revision with a contemporary, cementless extensively porous-coated cobalt-chrome monoblock stem were included. Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores were recorded preoperatively and at latest follow-up. Radiographs were analyzed for evidence of loosening, subsidence, osteolysis, and bony union. This study included 55 patients, comprising of 36 females (66%) and 19 males (34%) with a mean age of 66.4 ± 9.3 years at the time of surgery. The mean time interval from index procedure was 9.8 ± 2.9 years. Mean time from revision THA to final follow-up was 13.2 ± 2.17 years with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.ResultsIndications for revision included aseptic loosening (33), prosthetic joint infection (13), and periprosthetic fracture (10). Significant improvement in Harris Hip Score (85.1 ± 1.77 vs 51.8 ± 2.3, P < .001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (17.6 ± 0.77 vs 33.3 ± 0.8, P < .001), and University of California Los Angeles (5.25 ± 0.2 vs 2.7 ± 0.36, P < .001) scores were found at latest follow-up compared to preoperative. Fifty-four patients (98%) achieved stable bony ingrowth on radiographic analysis. All 10 patients treated for periprosthetic fractures achieved bony union of their fractures. Two patients suffered intraoperative periprosthetic fractures and were treated with a cable-plating system. There were no mechanical failures and no femoral stem re-revisions. One patient was diagnosed with a deep infection and was treated with chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy due to significant medical comorbidities.ConclusionRevision of the femoral component with a contemporary extensively porous-coated cobalt-chrome femoral stem has excellent functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and long-term survivorship with minimal complications.     

Impact of Femoral Stem Design on Failure After Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

An increased rate of complications related to femoral component failure has been described with less invasive total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study evaluated the incidence of femoral complications associated with the direct anterior approach for THA.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-database Comparative Studies on Cemented Versus Uncemented Femoral Stems in Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundCemented and uncemented femoral stems have shown excellent survivorship and outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cementless stems have become increasingly common in the United States; however, multiple large database studies have suggested that elderly patients may have fewer complications with a cemented stem. As conclusions from large databases may be limited due to variations in data collection, this study investigated femoral stem survivorship and complication rates based on cement status in non-database studies.MethodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized to identify articles for inclusion up until June 2021. Included articles directly compared outcomes and complications between patients undergoing primary THA without femoral stem cementing to those with cementing. Studies were excluded if they utilized large databases or consisted of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of trauma.ResultsOf the 1700 studies, 309 were selected for abstract review and nineteen for full-text review. A total of seven studies were selected. Meta-analyses indicated substantial heterogeneity between studies. There were no differences in revision rates (cementless: 5.53% vs. cemented 8.91%, P = .543), infection rates (cementless: 0.60% vs. cemented: 0.90%, P = .692), or periprosthetic fracture rates (cementless: 0.52% vs. cemented: 0.51%, P = .973) between groups.ConclusionThere is scarce literature comparing outcomes and complications between cemented and cementless femoral stems in primary elective THA without utilizing a database methodology. In our study, there were no differences in complications detected on meta-analyses. Given previous findings in database studies, additional high-quality cohort studies are required to determine if selected patients may benefit from a cemented femoral stem.     

Predictive Factors for Revision and Survivorship Analysis of a Prevalent 36-mm Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacement System: A Large Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundTo our knowledge, this is the largest single-center cohort of the 36-mm Corail-Pinnacle metal-on-metal total hip replacements system, aiming to determine 10-year survivorship and identify predictors of revision. We further assessed year of implantation given reports of manufacturing variations affecting shells made after 2006 predisposing these components to increasing wear.MethodsAll Corail-Pinnacle 36-mm metal-on-metal hips implanted in a single center (2005-2012). The effect of patient and implant-related variables, and year of implantation on revision risk was assessed using Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and interrupted time series analysis.ResultsIn total, 1212 metal-on-metal total hip replacements were implanted with a 10-year survival rate of 83.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.3-85.5). Mean follow-up duration was 7.3 years with 61% of patients reaching a minimum of 7 years of follow-up. One hundred nineteen patients required revision surgery (9.8%). Univariate analysis identified female gender (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.608, CI = 1.093-2.364, P = .016), age at implantation (HR = 0.982, CI = 0.968-0.997, P = .019), smaller 50-mm to 54-mm cup diameter (HR = 1.527, CI = 1.026-2.274, P = .037), and high-offset stems (HR = 2.573, CI = 1.619-4.089, P < .001) as predictors of revision. Multivariate modeling confirmed female gender and high-offset stems as significant predictors of revision. For components implanted after 2007, the number of revisions showed no statistically significant step increase compared to pre-2007 implantation.ConclusionWe observed a high 10-year failure rate (16.6%) with this implant, mostly due to adverse reaction to metal debris. Female gender and high femoral offset stems were significant predictors for all-cause revision. Year of implantation was not significantly associated with an increasing number of revisions from 2007 onwards, although further studies to validate the impact of manufacturing discrepancies are recommended.     

Risk Factors for Significant Radiolucent Line Development in a Fully Coated Hydroxyapatite Stem

BackgroundThe risk factors for and clinical impact of radiolucent lines (RLLs) in cementless total hip arthroplasty remain contentious. The aim of this work was to describe a method of classification that has clinical significance and to identify risk factors.MethodsA cohort of 288 subjects with unrevised Corail stems (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) were reviewed with radiographs and Oxford Hip Scores at 10 years. Based on clinical experience, three groups were defined; those with no RLLs (NoRLLs), those considered to have benign RLLs (BenRLLs), and those considered to have significant RLLs (SigRLLs). SigRLLs were then compared to BenRLLs and NoRLLs to determine the validity of this classification.ResultsOne hundred and nine (37.8%) had NoRLLs, 111 (38.5%) had BenRLLs, and 68 (23.6%) had SigRLLs. No significant difference apart from gender was noted between the occurrence of BenRLLs and NoRLLs after multinomial regression analysis, consequently the NoRLLs and BenRLLs groups were combined (NoSigRLLs) and compared to SigRLLs. Non-cross-linked polyethylene (odds ratio = 4.6, P < .001), collarless stem design (odds ratio = 9.4, P < .001), undersizing (odds ratio = 1.2, P = .028), and male sex (odds ratio = 2.1, P = .008) were risk factors for SigRLLs. Regression analysis also revealed that increasing age at operation decreased the likelihood of SigRLLs (P < .001). Patients with SigRLLs had significantly higher pain scores (P = .005) although overall Oxford Hip Scores were not significantly different (P = .364).ConclusionThe definition of SigRLLs proposed in this study was significantly associated with that of non-cross-linked polyethylene, absence of a collar, undersizing, and higher pain scores.     

Revision Joint Arthroplasty and Renal Transplant: A Matched Control Cohort Study

BackgroundThere is little literature concerning clinical outcomes following revision joint arthroplasty in solid organ transplant recipients. The aims of this study are to (1) analyze postoperative outcomes and mortality following revision hip and knee arthroplasty in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) compared to non-RTRs and (2) characterize common indications and types of revision procedures among RTRs.MethodsA retrospective Medicare database review identified 1020 RTRs who underwent revision joint arthroplasty (359 revision total knee arthroplasty [TKA] and 661 revision total hip arthroplasty [THA]) from 2005 to 2014. RTRs were compared to their respective matched control groups of nontransplant revision arthroplasty patients for hospital length of stay, readmission, major medical complications, infections, septicemia, and mortality following revision.ResultsRenal transplantation was significantly associated with increased length of stay (6.12 ± 7.86 vs 4.33 ± 4.29, P < .001), septicemia (odds ratio [OR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-3.46; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.51-4.53; P < .001) following revision TKA. Among revision THA patients, RTR status was associated with increased hospital readmission (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P = .023), septicemia (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.34; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.88-3.66; P < .001). The most frequent primary diagnoses associated with revision TKA and THA among RTRs were mechanical complications of prosthetic implant.ConclusionPrior renal transplantation among revision joint arthroplasty patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality when compared to nontransplant recipients.     

Cortical Strut Allograft Support of Modular Femoral Junctions During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

There is risk of junction failure when using modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially with loss of bone stock in the proximal femur. Using a cortical strut allograft may provide additional support of a modular femoral construct in revision THA.

Modern Revision Femoral Stem Designs Have No Difference in Rates of Subsidence

BackgroundBoth modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems have gained popularity over fully porous-coated cylindrical (FPCC) femoral stem designs, but limited data exist comparing subsidence rates following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in subsidence and clinical outcomes among 3 revision femoral stem designs.MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 335 patients who underwent femoral component revision to a cementless modular TFT (n = 225), monoblock TFT (n = 63), or FPCC (n = 47) stem between 2012 and 2019. We evaluated radiographic subsidence rates, re-revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes between the 3 stems. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of stem type on the risk of subsidence >5 mm.ResultsAt an average follow-up of 39 months (range, 12 to 96 months), there were no differences in mean subsidence rates (3.5 vs 2.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .14), HOOS Jr scores (78 vs 74 vs 64 points, P = .15), or aseptic re-revision rates (4% vs 3% vs 0%, P = .29) between modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC stems. Although modular TFT stems were more often used in patients with extensive femoral bone loss (Paprosky III and IV), there were no differences in subsidence rates >5 mm among the 3 stems (P > .05) in multivariate analysis.ConclusionModular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC femoral stem designs all perform well in revision THA with no difference in clinical outcomes or subsidence rates. Surgeons should select the stem which they feel is the most clinically appropriate.     

Polished Cemented Femoral Stems Have a Lower Rate of Revision Than Matt Finished Cemented Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 96,315 Cemented Femoral Stems

Background

Matt and polished femoral stems have been historically grouped together in registry assessment of the outcome of cemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. This is despite differences in the mode of fixation and biomechanics of loading. The aims of this study are to compare the survivorship of polished tapered stems with matt finished cemented stems.

Ceramic Bearings Are Associated With a Significantly Reduced Revision Rate in Primary Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England,Wales, Northern Ireland,and the Isle of Man

BackgroundProsthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication. Studies have suggested reduction in PJI with the use of ceramic bearings.MethodsAdult patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using an uncemented acetabular component with ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), or metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearing surfaces between 2002 and 2016 were extracted from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. A competing risk regression model to investigate predictors of each revision outcome was used. Time-to-event was determined by duration of implantation since primary surgery with competing risks being death or revision. The results were adjusted for age, gender, American Association of Anaesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgical indication, intraoperative complications, and implant data.ResultsIn total, 456,457 THAs (228,786 MoP, 128,403 CoC, and 99,268 CoP) were identified. Multivariable modeling showed that the risk of revision for PJI was significantly lower with CoC (risk ratio 0.748, P < .001) and CoP (risk ratio 0.775, P < .001) compared to MoP. Significant reduction in risk of aseptic and all-cause revision was also seen. The significant protective effect of ceramic bearing was predominantly seen 2 years after implantation. Aseptic revision beyond 2 years reduced by 18.1% and 24.8% for CoC and CoP (P < .001), respectively. All-cause revision rate beyond 2 years reduced by 21.6% for CoC and 27.1% for CoP (P < .001)ConclusionThis study demonstrates an association between the use of ceramic as part of the bearing, with lower rates of revision for all causes, revision for infection, and revision for aseptic causes, supporting ceramic bearings in THA.