Etiology and Complications of Early Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Within 90 Days

BackgroundThe etiology, complications, and rerevision risks of early aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) within 90 days are insufficiently documented.MethodsA national insurance claims database (PearlDiver Technologies, Fort Wayne, IN) was queried for patients who underwent unilateral aseptic revision THA within 90 days of the index procedure using administrative codes. Patients who underwent revision for infection, without minimum 2-year follow-up, and younger than 18 years were excluded. This cohort was matched based on gender, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index to a control group of patients who underwent primary THA without revision within 90 days. Two-year rerevision and 90-day complication rates were recorded. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate for statistical comparison.ResultsFour hundred two patients met the inclusion criteria for early aseptic revision within 90 days of the index procedure and were matched to the control group. The overall 2-year rerevision rate was higher in the early revision group compared with control group (14.9% vs 2.5%, P < .001). Complications within 90 days occurred more frequently in the early revision group, including blood transfusion (10.2% vs 3.2%, P < .001), deep vein thrombosis (9.0% vs 3.2%, P = .001), and pulmonary embolism (2.74% vs 0.75%, P = .031). The most common reasons for early aseptic revision were dislocation (41.5%), fracture (38.1%), and loosening (17.4%).ConclusionEarly aseptic revision THA is associated with significantly higher 90-day complication rates and 2-year rerevision rates compared with a control group of primary THA without revision. The most common reasons for acute early revision were dislocation, fracture, and mechanical loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Anterior Revision Hip Arthroplasty is Associated With Higher Wound Complications but Fewer Dislocations Compared to Posterior Revision Hip Surgery

BackgroundWound complication after primary direct anterior (DAA) hip arthroplasty has been reported in the literature but there has been no comparison regarding revision anterior vs revision posterior (PA) hip arthroplasty. The authors hypothesize that anterior approach revision surgery may have increased wound complications compared with posterior hip revisions and also report on secondary outcome metrics.MethodsNinety-nine DAA and 191 PA revisions were included for analysis. Preoperative demographic characteristics, indication for revision, operative details, type of revision performed, components utilized, and postoperative complications were compared between DAA and PA groups including multivariate analysis.ResultsThe DAA cohort demonstrated an increased risk of superficial wound complications (7.1% vs 0.5%, P = .003) and a decreased dislocation rate (2.0% vs 13.1%, P = .002). There was a trend toward increased overall complications in the PA group (OR 1.71, P = .078).ConclusionRevision DAA THA is associated with an increased risk of superficial wound complications, but may impart a decreased dislocation rate.     

Does Revision of an Acetabular Shell With Insertion of an Uncemented Constrained Liner Confer Benefit Over Cementing Into a Well-Ingrown Shell?

BackgroundDuring revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), a constrained acetabular liner (CAL) may be inserted to enhance hip stability. It is unclear, however, whether cementation of a CAL into a retained cup offers an advantage compared to revision of the acetabular cup and insertion of an uncemented CAL. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes and survivorship between the 2 methods.MethodsWe identified a total of 177 patients who underwent revision THA with a specific CAL at our center between July 2004 and May 2019 (114 cup revisions and insertion of an uncemented CAL, 63 cementations of a CAL into a retained cup). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was performed for implant survival free from aseptic failure of the CAL for both cohorts.ResultsThe average follow-up time was 7.2 and 7.02 years for the cemented and uncemented cohort, respectively (P = .55). Five patients (7.93%) in the cemented CAL group experienced failure of the CAL, whereas 10 patients (8.77%) in the uncemented CAL cohort experienced failure (P = .21). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis demonstrated comparable survivorship at 10 years (P = .055).ConclusionThe results of our study suggest comparable survivorship between cementing a CAL into a retained cup and inserting an uncemented CAL in a revised acetabular cup. As a result of these findings along with the benefits associated with cementing a CAL, we encourage surgeons to readily consider this option in the management of recurrent instability.     

A Comparison of Risk of Dislocation and Cause-Specific Revision Between Direct Anterior and Posterior Approach Following Elective Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundUse of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased over the last decade. We sought to investigate whether (1) a difference exists in dislocation risk for DAA compared with posterior THA, (2) a difference exists in risk for specific revision reasons, and (3) the likelihood of adverse 90-day postoperative events differs.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente’s Total Joint Replacement Registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary cementless THA for osteoarthritis with a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner were included (2009-2017). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate dislocation and cause-specific revision risks, and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day unplanned readmissions, and 90-day complications (including deep infection, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism).ResultsOf 38,399 primary THA, 6428 (16.7%) were DAA. All-cause revision at 2-years follow-up was 1.78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.46-2.17) for DAA and 2.28% (95% CI = 2.11-2.45) for posterior. After adjusting for covariates, DAA had a lower risk of dislocation (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.29-0.53), revision for instability (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.18-0.58), revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.34-0.96), and readmission (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67-0.99) compared with posterior approach but a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening (HR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.35-3.79).ConclusionWhile the DAA associated with lower risks of dislocation and revision for instability and periprosthetic fracture, it is associated with a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening. Surgeons should discuss these risks with their patients.     

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.     

Conical Primary Cementless Stem in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: 94 Consecutive Implantations at a Mean Follow-Up of 12.7 years

BackgroundRevision of a failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses technical challenges. The use of primary stems for revision can be advantageous for maintaining bone stock and reducing complications: small case series have reported promising results in the short-term to mid-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional results and survivorship of a consecutive series of THA femoral component revisions using a conical primary cementless stem (PCS).MethodsNinety-four stem revisions with a preoperative Paprosky I or II defect were analyzed at an average follow-up of 12.7 ± 5.4 years. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 92.5% of cases. Twenty patients were lost to follow-up. Two subgroups were created: Group 1 (n = 59) underwent isolated stem revision; Group 2 (n = 15) underwent complete THA revision. All were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score, and the visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Residual trochanteric pain and length discrepancies were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included signs of osteolysis, subsidence, loosening, and heterotopic ossification.ResultsPCS survivorship was 100% at 5 years and 95.9% at 10 years. Overall, significant postoperative improvements (P < .01) were observed on the HHS (44.3 vs 86.9), WOMAC (42.8 vs 82.8), and VAS (7.0 vs 3.0). Postoperative scores on all scales were higher for Group 1 (P < .01). Three patients (4.1%) underwent further stem revision. Demarcation lines (1 mm) were found in 12 (16.2%) patients and significant heterotopic ossifications in 22 (29.7%).ConclusionThe use of PCS for stem revision in failed THA with a limited femoral bone defect is a reliable option for both isolated stem revision and concomitant cup revision in well-selected patients.     

Causes of Revision in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients who underwent primary THA at or before the age of 35 years. We hypothesized that the reasons for revision in younger patients would be different from the general older population of patients undergoing THA because of the differences in diagnoses, complexity of deformities, and differences in activity level.MethodsData for 108 hips in 82 patients who underwent primary THA at our institution before the age of 35 years from 1982-2007 and subsequently underwent revision THA were reviewed. Operative reports and clinic notes were reviewed to determine baseline characteristics, reason for revision, timing of revision, and components revised.ResultsThe mean age at index surgery was 25.4 years, and mean time from index to revision surgery was 10.1 years. The most common preoperative diagnoses included avascular necrosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and posttraumatic arthritis. The most common reasons for revision were acetabular loosening (30.1%), femoral loosening (23.7%), and polyethylene wear (24.7%). 8.3% of patients underwent primary THA with highly cross-linked polyethylene, while the remainder of the patients underwent THA when conventional polyethylene was used. There was no statistically significant association between which component(s) were revised and initial fixation (ie cemented or uncemented prosthesis) (P = .26).ConclusionCauses of revision in this population appear to differ from the general THA population. In young patients, acetabular loosening, femur loosening, and polyethylene wear were the most common causes of revision. Instability and infection were less common compared with literature reports of causes of revision in older patients. Findings in this study may be useful in counseling young patients undergoing THA, though results were likely influenced by the use of conventional rather than highly cross-linked polyethylene in this cohort.     

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.     

Revision Risk in a Cohort of US Patients Younger Than 55 Undergoing Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundAs indications for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) expand to younger patients, we sought to (1) compare revision risk following primary elective THA in patients <55 years at the time of their THA to patients aged ≥65 years and (2) identify specific risk factors for revision in patients <55 years.MethodsA Kaiser Permanente's total joint replacement registry was used to conduct a cohort study including primary elective THA patients aged ≥18 (2001-2018). In total, 11,671 patients <55 years and 53,106 patients ≥65 years were included. Multiple Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision risk, including septic revision, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture. Stepwise Cox regression was used to identify patient and surgical factors associated with cause-specific revision in patients <55 years.ResultsPatients <55 years had a higher risk of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.66), aseptic loosening (HR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.99-3.40), and instability (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.09-1.68), but a lower risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22-0.59) compared to patients aged ≥65 years. In the <55 age group, risk factors for septic revision included higher body mass index, drug abuse, and liver disease. Hypertension, anterior approach, and ceramic-on-ceramic were associated with aseptic loosening. White race, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3, smoker, paralysis, posterior approach, ceramic-on-ceramic, and smaller head diameter were associated with instability.ConclusionIdentified risk factors varied depending on the cause for revision. Although septic revisions were related to patient characteristics, more modifiable factors, such as implant or surgical approach, were associated with revision due to aseptic loosening and instability.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in the Presence of Kidney Failure: A National Data Linkage Study

BackgroundPatients who have kidney failure are at higher risk of requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are at higher risk of complications. This study compared the rate of revision surgery and mortality following THA between patients who have kidney failure receiving long term dialysis or who had a kidney transplant and those who did not have kidney failure.MethodsA data linkage study was performed using data from 2 national registries: a registry of dialysis and kidney transplant patients and a registry of THA procedures. Both registries had coverage of almost all procedures or treatments in Australia. Data from September 1999 to December 2016 were used. Mortality and revision surgery were compared between patients receiving dialysis, those who had a functioning kidney transplant, and patients who did not have kidney failure using Cox and Fine-Gray (competing risk) regression models. A total of 383,478 primary THA procedures were identified as people receiving dialysis (n = 490), who had a functioning kidney transplant (n = 459), or who did not have kidney failure (n = 382,529).ResultsThere was no significant difference in the overall rate of revision surgery between the groups (dialysis versus no kidney failure HR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76, 1.88, transplant versus no kidney failure (hazard ratio) HR = 1.01; 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.66, 1.53). The risk for death after surgery was significantly higher in the dialysis group compared to both the functioning transplant group (HR = 3.44; 95%CI 1.58, 7.5), and in those without kidney failure (HR = 4.13; 95%CI 3.25, 5.25).ConclusionThe rate of mortality after THA in patients on dialysis is higher than in patients who have a functioning transplant or those who do not have kidney failure, but there is no early excess mortality to suggest a difference in this metric due to the surgery.     

Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision—Is It Safe?

BackgroundRevision of monoblock metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with high complication rates. Limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component extraction may mitigate these complications. However, the concern for polyethylene wear and osteolysis remains unsettled. This study investigates the results of DM conversion of monoblock MoM THA compared to formal acetabular revision.MethodsOne hundred forty-three revisions of monoblock MoM THA were reviewed. Twenty-nine were revisions to a DM construct, and 114 were complete revisions of the acetabular component. Mean patient age was 61, 54% were women. Components used, acetabular cup position, radiographic outcomes, serum metal ion levels, and HOOS Jr clinical outcome scores were investigated.ResultsAt 3.9 years of follow-up (range 2-5), there were 2 revisions (6.9%) in the DM cohort, 1 for instability and another for periprosthetic fracture. Among the formal acetabular revision group there was a 20% major complication rate (23/114) and 16% underwent revision surgery (18/114) for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), acetabular fracture (3%), or delayed wound healing (6%). In the DM cohort, there were no radiographic signs of aseptic loosening, component migration, or polyethylene wear. One DM patient had a small posterior metadiaphyseal femur lesion that will require close monitoring. There were no other radiographic signs of osteolysis. There were no clinically significant elevations of serum metal ion levels. HOOS Jr scores were favorable.ConclusionLimited revision with conversion to DM is a viable treatment option for failed monoblock MoM THA with lower complication rates than formal revision. Limited revision to DM appears to be a safe option for revision of monoblock MoM THA with a cup in good position and an internal geometry free of sharp edges or articular surface damage. Longer follow-up is needed to demonstrate any potential wear implications of these articulations.     

Implant Survival of Constrained Acetabular Device in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Based on Data From the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

BackgroundConstrained acetabular devices were developed to prevent dislocations after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the data on their success have been contradictory. In this study, we aimed to assess implant survival of the constrained acetabular device in primary THA based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register data.MethodsA total of 373 primary THAs with constrained acetabular devices inserted from 2006 to 2017 were included. A reference group was formed on a 1:3 basis and matched for age, sex, and diagnosis, consisting of 1118 conventional THAs. Implant survival estimates using death as a competing risk were assessed with revision for any reason and for any aseptic reason as the endpoints. The Cox multiple regression models were adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis. The mean follow-up time was 3.3 (0-12.4) years for the constrained device group and 3.8 (0-12.0) years for the reference group.ResultsOverall, there were 21 revisions in the constrained device group and 49 in the reference group. The 8-year survivorship for any reason was 94% (confidence interval [CI]: 91-96) for the constrained device group and 93% (CI: 89-97) for the reference group. With revision for any aseptic reason as the endpoint, the 8-year survivorships were 97% (CI: 95-99) and 94% (CI: 90-98), respectively. During the first 1.5 years, the constrained acetabular device group had a similar revision risk (hazard ratio: 1.09 [CI: 0.57-2.07], P = .8) to that of the reference group.ConclusionThe constrained acetabular device had good survival in primary THA, and our results support its continued use even in high-risk patients.     

Can Dislocation Rates Be Decreased Using the Anterior Approach in Patients With Lumbar Spondylosis or Lumbar Instrumented Fusion?

BackgroundAlthough spinopelvic stiffness is known to contribute to instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA), it is unknown whether use of an anterior surgical approach is associated with decreased postoperative instability rates in patients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of 1750 patients who underwent primary THA at our institution over an 8-year time period. Radiographic and chart review was performed evaluating for dislocations. Lumbar and pelvic radiographs were used to identify the presence of spondylosis and/or instrumented fusion. Patients were then divided into non-spondylosis and spondylosis or fusion groups to compare dislocation rates by surgical approach.ResultsIn total, 54.4% of THA patients had an anterior approach (n = 952) and 54.6% had lumbar spondylosis or instrumented fusion (n = 956). There were 29 dislocations in total (1.7%), with less occurring in anterior approach patients (0.6% vs 2.9%, P < .001). In the patients without lumbar spondylosis, there were less dislocations in the anterior approach group (0.2% vs 1.7%, P = .048). Likewise, in patients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion, there were less dislocations in the anterior approach group (1.0% vs 3.8%, P = .004). Using logistic regression, there was a 4.1× increased risk of dislocation with a posterior approach vs an anterior approach in the spondylosis or fusion group (P = .011).ConclusionPatients with lumbar spondylosis or fusion have high rates of instability. At our institution, we found that utilization of an anterior surgical approach substantially mitigated this risk.     

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Hip Arthroscopy Has Increased Complications and Revision Risk

BackgroundThere has been an increase in hip arthroscopy (HA) over the last decade. After HA, some patients may ultimately require a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a scarcity of research investigating the outcomes in patients undergoing THA with a history of ipsilateral HA.MethodsThe PearlDiver research program (www.pearldiverinc.com) was queried to capture all patients undergoing THA between 2015 and 2020. Propensity matching was performed to match patients undergoing THA with and without a history of ipsilateral THA. Rates of 30-day medical complications, 1-year surgical complications, and THA revision were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to estimate survival probabilities of each of the groups with patients undergoing THA .ResultsAfter propensity matching, cohorts of 1940 patients undergoing THA without prior HA and 1940 patients undergoing a THA with prior HA were isolated for analysis. The mean time from HA to THA was 1127 days (standard deviation 858). Patients with a history of ipsilateral HA had an increased risk for dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 1.56, P = .03) and overall decreased implant survival within 4 years of undergoing THA (OR 1.53; P = .05). Furthermore, our data demonstrate the timing of previous HA to be associated with the risk of complications, as illustrated by the increased risk for dislocation (OR 1.75, P = .03), aseptic loosening (OR 2.18, P = .03), and revision surgery at 2 (OR 1.92, P = .02) and 4 years (OR 2.05, P = .01) in patients undergoing THA within 1 year of HA compared twitho patients undergoing THA more than 1 year after HA or with no previous history of HA.ConclusionPatients undergoing THA after HA are at an increased risk for surgical complications, as well as the need for revision surgery.     

Revision Surgery for Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does Timing Matter?

BackgroundInstability is a common reason for revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Recent studies suggest that revisions performed in the early postoperative period are associated with higher complication rates. The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of timing of revision for instability on subsequent complication rates.MethodsThe Medicare Part A claims database was queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify revision THAs for instability. Patients were divided based on time between index and revision surgeries: <1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-6, 6-9, 9-12, and >12 months. Complication rates were compared between groups using multivariate analyses to adjust for demographics and comorbidities.ResultsOf 445,499 THAs identified, 9298 (2.1%) underwent revision for instability. Revision THA within 3 months had the highest rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI): 14.7% at <1 month, 12.7% at 1-2 months, and 10.6% at 2-3 months vs 6.9% at >12 months (P < .001). Adjusting for confounding factors, PJI risk remained elevated at earlier periods: <1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-2.23, P < .001), 1-2 months (aOR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16-1.82, P = .001), 2-3 months (aOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.78, P = .036). However, revisions performed within 9 months of index surgery had lower rates of subsequent instability than revisions performed >12 months (aOR: 0.67-0.85, P < .050), which may be due to lower rates of acetabular revision and higher rates of head-liner exchange in this later group.ConclusionWhen dislocation occurs in the early postoperative period, delaying revision surgery beyond 3 months from the index procedure may be warranted to reduce risk of PJI.     

Disparities in Elective and Nonelective Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundPrior studies have shown disparities in utilization of primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, little is known about patient population differences associated with elective and nonelective surgery. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore factors that influence primary utilization and revision risk of THA based on surgery indication.MethodsData were obtained from 7,543 patients who had a primary THA from 2014 to 2020 in a database, which consists of multiple health partner systems in Louisiana and Texas. Of these patients, 602 patients (8%) underwent nonelective THA. THA was classified as “elective” or “nonelective” if the patient had a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis or femoral neck fracture, respectively.ResultsAfter multivariable logistic regression, nonelective THA was associated with alcohol dependence, lower body mass index (BMI), women, and increased age and number of comorbid conditions. No racial or ethnic differences were observed for the utilization of primary THA. Of the 262 patients who underwent revision surgery, patients who underwent THA for nonelective etiologies had an increased odds of revision within 3 years of primary THA (odds ratio (OR) = 1.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.06-2.58, P-value = .025). After multivariable logistic regression, patients who had tobacco usage (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.04-1.78, P-value = .024), alcohol dependence (aOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.45-4.15, P-value = .001), and public insurance (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.18-3.70, P-value = .026) had an increased risk of reoperation.ConclusionDemographic and social factors impact the utilization of elective and nonelective primary THA and subsequent revision surgery. Orthopaedic surgeons should focus on preoperative counseling for tobacco and alcohol cessation as these are modifiable risk factors to directly decrease reoperation risk.     

Early,Mid-Term,and Late-Term Aseptic Femoral Revisions After THA: Comparing Causes,Complications, and Resource Utilization

BackgroundRegistry data suggest increasing rates of early revisions after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We sought to analyze modes of failure over time after index THA to identify risk factors for early revision.MethodsWe identified 208 aseptic femoral revision THAs performed between February 2011 and July 2019 using an institutional database. We compared demographics, diagnoses, complications, and resource utilization between aseptic femoral revision THA occurring within 90 days (early), 91 days to 2 years (mid), and greater than 2 years (late) after index arthroplasty.ResultsEarly revisions were 33% of revisions at our institution in the time period analyzed. Periprosthetic fractures were 81% of early, 27% of mid, and 21% of late femoral revisions (P < .01). Women were more likely to have early revisions than men (75% vs 53% of mid and 48% of late revisions; P < .01). Patients who had early revisions were older (67.97 ± 10.06) at the time of primary surgery than those who had mid and late revisions (64.41 ± 12.10 and 57.63 ± 12.52, respectively, P < .01). Index implants were uncemented in 99% of early, 96% of mid, and 64% of late revisions (P < .01). Early revisions had longer postoperative length of stay (4.4 ± 3.3) than mid and late revisions (3.0 ± 2.2 and 3.7 ± 2.1, respectively, P = .02). In addition, 58% of early revisions were discharged to an inpatient facility compared with 36% of mid and 41% of late revisions (P = .03).ConclusionEarly aseptic femoral revisions largely occur in older women with uncemented primary implants and primarily due to periprosthetic fractures. Reducing the incidence of periprosthetic fractures is critical to decreasing the large health care utilization of early revisions.     

Single Wedge Femoral Stem Designs are Associated With a Higher Risk for Revision After Cementless Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundCementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems are the most commonly selected prostheses in the United States. Optimal stem geometry remains controversial with excellent survivorship reported for many designs. We compared cause-specific stem revision of single-wedge versus double-wedge designs from a multicenter US cohort.MethodsData from an integrated healthcare network’s total joint replacement registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary elective cementless THAs were identified (2001 to 2018). Implant exposure groups were classified by design geometry using the system proposed by Khanuja et al. Type 1 single-wedge (n = 11,082) and type 2 double-wedge (n = 32,380) designs were compared, and other design types were excluded; the final study cohort comprised 43,462 THAs. Cause-specific multivariable Cox regressions were used to evaluate risk for revision due to infection or aseptic reasons, including loosening, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or other reasons.ResultsAfter adjustment for covariates, a higher aseptic revision risk was observed for type 1 when compared to type 2 designs (hazard ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.75). When looking at specific revision reasons, revision for aseptic loosening (hazard ratio = 3.46, 95% confidence interval = 2.24-5.34) was higher for type 1 versus type 2 designs. No differences were found for septic revision, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or revisions for other reasons.ConclusionsType 1 single-wedge designs were found to have a higher risk of revision due to aseptic loosening relative to type 2 double-wedge designs. Femoral stem geometry should be considered when selecting a cementless femoral implant.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Hepatitis C Is Associated With Higher Short-Term Complication Rates After Initial Aseptic and Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundIt is unclear if hepatitis C virus (HCV) negatively impacts outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of this study is to trend recent rTHA utilization in patients who have HCV and compare postoperative complication rates versus a matched cohort.MethodsAll patients who underwent rTHA were retrospectively identified in a national database. Patients who had HCV (n = 1,746) were matched 1:3 with a matching group (n = 5,238) for age, gender, and several comorbidities. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to analyze trends in the annual proportion of rTHA performed in patients who had HCV from 2010 to 2019. Rates of 90-day medical and prosthesis-related complications within 2 years postoperatively were compared with multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsThe annual proportion of rTHA performed in patients who had HCV significantly increased from 2010 to 2019 (P < .001). Patients who had HCV exhibited significantly higher rates of acute kidney injuries (7.6% versus 4.4%; odds ratio [OR] 1.50), transfusions (20.6% versus 14.6%; OR 1.38), and re-revisions for prosthetic joint infection (10.9% versus 6.5%; OR 1.73). In subgroup analyses, rates of re-revision for prosthetic joint infection after initial aseptic rTHA (7.1% versus 3.8%; OR 1.82) and periprosthetic fracture after initial septic rTHA (4.5% versus 1.6%; OR 2.77) were significantly higher in the HCV cohort.ConclusionSimilar to primary THA, patients who have HCV exhibit significantly increased complication rates after rTHA. With growing utilization in recent years, these data suggest that this population will comprise an increasingly larger proportion of rTHA procedures performed in the coming years.     

Variability in Acetabular Component Position in Patients Undergoing Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Who Have Concomitant Spine Pathology

BackgroundHip instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be a major cause of revision surgery. Physiological patient position impacts acetabular anteversion and abduction, and influences the functional component positioning. Osteoarthritis of the spine leads to abnormal spinopelvic biomechanics and motion, but there is no consensus on the degree of component variability for THAs performed by anterior approach. Therefore, we sought to present guidelines for changes in acetabular component positioning between supine and standing positions for patients undergoing primary THA by a uniform anterior approach.MethodsPerioperative patient radiographs of the pelvis and lumbar spine were collected. Images were used to determine acetabular component positioning and degree of coexisting spinal pathology, categorized as a Lane Grade (LG). Final analysis of variance was performed on a sample size of 643 anterior primary THAs.ResultsFrom supine to standing position, as the severity of lumbar pathology increased the change in anteversion also increased (LG:0 = ?0.11° ± 4.65°, LG:1 = 2.02° ± 4.09°, LG:2-3 = 5.78° ± 5.72°, P < .001). The mean supine anteversion in patients with absent lumbar pathology was 19.72° ± 5.05° and was lower in patients with worsening lumbar pathology (LG:1 = 18.25° ± 4.81°, LG:2-3 = 16.73° ± 5.28°, P < .001).ConclusionPatients undergoing primary THA by anterior approach with worsening spinal pathology have larger increases in component anteversion when transitioning from supine to standing positions. Consideration should be given to this expected variability when placing the patient’s acetabular component.