"Tripolar" hip arthroplasty for failed hip resurfacing: nineteen years follow-up.

The authors describe the case of a 37-year-old patient who sustained a subcapital femoral neck fracture six months after ICLH double-cup hip resurfacing. As the polyethylene acetabular resurfacing component was undamaged and well fixed, a standard femoral stem with a bipolar head was inserted. The outer diameter of the bipolar head was chosen to fit the resurfacing socket. The "tripolar" hip arthroplasty has functioned well for 19 years and was revised for aseptic cup loosening. The cemented femoral stem was still well fixed and was not revised. Although the "tripolar" hip has functioned well in our case, we believe it is not indicated for metal on metal bearings. In this case the use of an appropriate modular head with a correct head-socket clearance is preferred.     

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty is indicated for most periprosthetic fractures that occur around the stem of the femoral implant. The purpose of the present study was to assess the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: We evaluated 118 hips in 116 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty because of an acute Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture. The femoral implant used for the revision was a cemented stem in forty-two hips, a proximally porous-coated uncemented stem in twenty-eight, an extensively porous-coated stem in thirty, and an allograft-prosthesis composite or tumor prosthesis in eighteen. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.4 years. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival was 90% at five years and 79.2% at ten years with revision or removal of the femoral implant for any reason as the end point. Sixteen femoral components were rerevised: ten were rerevised because of loosening; three, because of loosening in association with a fracture nonunion; two, because of recurrent dislocation; and one, because of a new periprosthetic fracture. Additionally, six femoral implants were resected because of deep infection (five) or prosthetic loosening (one). Radiographs of the ninety-six hips with a surviving implant showed that twenty-one had evidence of loosening of the femoral implant, four had a nonunion of the femoral fracture, and two had both a nonunion and loosening of the femoral implant. CONCLUSIONS: Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around the stem of the femoral implant successfully restored function for most patients. The greatest long-term problems were prosthetic loosening and fracture nonunion. Better results were seen when an uncemented, extensively porous-coated stem was used.     

Femoral component neck fracture after failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Failure on the femoral side after third-generation metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty is suggested to be easily treated with conversion to conventional total hip arthroplasty. Clinical results of conversion for failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the use of primary femoral implants confirmed this for a short-term follow-up. We present a case of the occurrence of a stemmed femoral implant neck fracture in a patient who was earlier treated for a failed hip resurfacing. We advise to consider acetabular revision in case of (suspected) acetabular metal damage and to use a stem component with a relative large neck diameter.     

Stress fracture of femoral stem of hip resurfacing a cause of sudden onset hip pain- A case report and review of literature

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip has had a difficult last decade.Fracture of the femoral neck has been a known complication of resurfaced hip replacement; however, fracture of the metal peg within the femoral component has only been reported twice. We encountered and treated a patient with a unique type of metal failure.A 45 year old lady had advanced arthritis of her left hip secondary to rheumatoid disease.In 2006, an ASR resurfacing arthroplasty was performed and excellent function of the hip was achieved. After 9 years, she experienced an acute pain in the hip without trauma.Serial radiographs before & after the onset of symptoms did not reveal any significant abnormality. MRI scan did not suggest any adverse features too. No evidence emerged in favour of adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Decision to revise the hip was taken with suspicion of an occult fracture.At surgery, the stem of the femoral component was found fractured at its junction with the dome, the dome being still well fixed with the femoral neck. The acetabular component was well fixed. Till date she is very satisfied with the revised hip.Fracture of the femoral peg at its junction to the dome is a complication of hip resurfacing that has not been previously reported in the literature. On the retrieved specimen, instead of ‘beach lines’ indicative of failure of the material over a prolonged period, we observed only a notched area of bending on the medial side of the implant. This is indicative of an acute event.We wish to make surgeons aware of this particular complication when investigating a similar Case presentation. There is unlikely any standard investigation that diagnoses the fractured implant accurately.     

An early comparison of clinical and mechanical aspects of hybrid and uncemented hip resurfacing

Hip resurfacing is a popular operation for hip joint arthritis. It has been performed using hybrid and uncemented components. We aim to compare the two techniques functionally and mechanically over a 2 year post-operative period. We studied anteroposterior (AP) radiographs from 30 patients who had undergone hybrid hip resurfacing and 30 patients who had undergone uncemented hip resurfacing using the transgluteal approach to the hip. We measured the acetabular offset, femoral offset, stem/shaft angle, medialization of the cup, head/neck ratio, cup height, leg length and the implant seating pre-operatively, immediately post-operatively, 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Harris Hip Scores were performed pre-operatively and at 1 year post-operatively. There was no significant loss of offset and no femoral neck thinning at 2 years post-operatively with no loss of leg length. We note a smaller femoral offset and a reduction on average of 2.87 mm in seating of the femoral cap in the uncemented group when compared to the hybrid group at the 1 year postoperative review. Thus, we attribute to movement of the femoral component in the first year postoperatively, and as such restoration of the femoral offset to the pre-operative level. Both groups showed an equal significant improvement in the Harris Hip Scores at the 1 year postoperative period when compared to the pre-operative score. We conclude that uncemented hip resurfacing is statistically as good as the hybrid hip resurfacing, with a stable uncemented femoral component relying on biological cancellous fixation rather than cement fixation. We also note that in both groups, no evidence of neck thinning was noted at the 2 year postoperative period.     

Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients

Clinical results of 50 metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasties in 45 Japanese patients were evaluated to a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The predominant diagnosis was developmental dysplasia or dislocation of the hip (70%). One patient died of an unrelated cause and another was lost to follow-up. Two hips received revision surgery, including 1 femoral neck fracture and 1 septic loosening. In the remaining 46 hips, 1 hip showed femoral component loosening. Clinical scores of the 46 hips were satisfactory at the final follow-up. The survival rate at 5 years was 96% when failure was attributed to revision for any reason. Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Japanese patients, who have a different distribution of hip diseases from European and American patients, showed similarly promising early clinical results.     

Multi-centre study of cement-in-cement and in-cement femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using polished,stainless steel stems

BackgroundExposure of the acetabular component during revision total hip arthroplasty is often difficult and stems are often difficult to remove. Polished and tapered cemented stems are easily removed and can be easily reconstructed by either cement-in-cement or in-cement technique. This study was a retrospective review of the medium-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty conducted with the Exeter stem fixed by cement-in-cement or in-cement method in four institutions.MethodsThis study included hips (n = 103) reconstructed by cement-in-cement or in-cement technique on the femoral side during revision total hip arthroplasty in four institutions between 2003 and 2015. The mean age at surgery was 71.1 years (range, 43–86 years), and the mean follow-up period was 5.6 years (range, 0–13 years).ResultsRevision arthroplasty was required for acetabular component complications in 69 hips, for dislocation in 25, for infection in eight, and for stem fracture in one hip. Re-revision was required in 10 hips for: infection (n = 6), acetabular component complications (n = 3), and dislocation (n = 1). No radiographic loosening, cement fractures, or osteolysis of the femoral components were observed. Ten-year survival rate was 99% with the endpoint of femoral revision surgery, and 100% with the endpoint of femoral aseptic loosening.ConclusionsThe medium-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty on the femoral side conducted using the cement-in-cement or in-cement technique were favourable, with no cases of aseptic loosening. As long as the bone-cement interface remains robust, there is no need to remove all the cement, and the cement-in-cement or in-cement technique should be used for reconstruction.     

Biomechanische Aspekte zur Implantatverankerung und Kinematik von Oberflächenersatzhüftendoprothesen

Hip resurfacing is undergoing a resurgence in orthopaedic surgery with an increasing number of implantations. The objective of this article is to present the biomechanical basics of implant anchorage as well as the kinematics of hip resurfacing implants.Today, fixation of the femoral component onto the prepared femoral head is mainly done using bone cement. Depending on the implant design, the bone structures beneath the femoral component can be exposed to stress shielding, followed by degradation of the bone density and subsequent initiation of implant loosening. However, the trabecular bone has the ability to adapt itself to the fixation peg, to additional cement pegs, and to the elastic properties of the femoral component as well.The acetabular component is mainly inserted into the bone stock without using cement. Provided that large prosthetic heads will be applied, thin-walled acetabular cups are crucial for bone-saving preparation of the acetabular bone stock. Nearly all hip resurfacing systems are currently based on metal-on-metal wear-bearing couples. The acetabular components are mainly designed as monoblock implants, which can make subsequent revision difficult.Kinematic analyses show a significantly lower range of motion of hip resurfacing implants compared with modern standard (stemmed) total hip replacement systems. This difference originates from the small ratio of the resurfaced femoral head diameter and the relatively thick neck of the femur. Impingement of the femur neck onto the rim of the acetabular component can result in subluxation, deformation of the bearing surfaces, femoral neck fracture, and impairment of the bony anchorage of the hip resurfacing implants.     

Good survival of uncemented tapered stems for failed intertrochanteric osteotomy: a mean 16 year follow-up study in 45 patients

Introduction  Inferior survival of cemented total hip arthroplasty has been reported after previous femoral osteotomy. We previously presented 5–15 years results of uncemented femoral stems for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of the present study was to re-evaluate that same patient group at 10–20 years follow-up. Materials and methods  Forty-eight hips in 45 patients had undergone conversion THA for a failed intertrochanteric osteotomy of the hip after a mean of 12 years (2–33 years). Mean time of follow-up was 16 years (10–20 years). Results  At the latest follow-up five patients had died (five hips), and one patient (one hip) remained lost to follow-up. Compared to the previous evaluation, one more patient required femoral revision for aseptic loosening giving a total of four patients (four hips) with femoral revision––one for infection and three for aseptic loosening of the stem. Survival of the stem was 91% at 15 and 20 years respectively; survival with femoral revision for aseptic loosening as an end point was 93%. The median Harris-Hip-Score at final follow-up was 76 points (previously 80 points). Radiolucent lines in Gruen zones 1 and 7 were present in 20 and 17% of hips, respectively. Radiolucencies in other zones were not detected. There was no radiographic evidence of femoral osteolysis, stress-shielding or loosening. Conclusion  The long-term results with this type of uncemented tapered titanium femoral component after proximal femoral osteotomy remain encouraging and compare favorably to those achieved in patients with regular femoral anatomy. This paper has not been under consideration by any other journal. All authors equally contributed to this paper.     

Present state of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing

Bone conservation and preservation, joint stability, and low wear of the large metal-on-metal resurfacing bearings have been convincingly demonstrated in the current literature. The clinical results of 600 MM Hybrid Conserve Plus Resurfacing in 519 patients with an average follow-up of 6.9 years (range, 4.0-10.4 years) have been excellent. The average age was 48.9 years, 74% of the patients were male, and the study included all etiologies of the young with arthritis. The complication rates other than dislocation and fracture of the femoral neck are comparable between resurfacing and conventional total hip replacement. The incidence of femoral neck fracture is low (1.2% worldwide) with less than 0.6% in this series and none occurring in the last 5 years due to proper patient selection and improved surgical technique. Component loosening after metal-on-metal resurfacing has been significantly reduced and acetabular component loosening is uncommon and has not happened in this series. Femoral bone preparation and optimal cementing techniques are paramount to prevention of femoral loosening. Clearance between the cylindrically reamed part of the head and the component varies in different designs, and the surgeon must note the need for different cementing strategies for different recommended clearances. The learning curve of a surgeon undertaking resurfacing can be greatly reduced by observation and hands-on training in specialized centers with surgeons experienced in resurfacing.     

Early complications of hip resurfacing

There has been a rapid increase in the number of hip resurfacing procedures for the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis over the last decade. We examine our early complications associated with this procedure. Eight hundred forty consecutive hip resurfacing procedures by 1 surgeon using 1 prosthesis were assessed. The complications seen within the first 12-month postoperative period were analyzed. Specific patient selection criteria were used. Complications such as loosening, femoral neck notching, femoral neck fracture, deep vein thrombosis, stress fracture, nerve palsy, and infection were noted. Complications linked with loosening were categorized to either the femoral or acetabular component. A total of 86 early complications were observed in the 840 resurfacings. Twenty-three (2.7%) required operative intervention, and 10 (1.2%) were converted to stemmed hip arthroplasties. Of these 86 complications, the most common complication was deep vein thrombosis, 19 instances (2.26% occurrence in 840), followed by femoral neck fracture, 11 (1.31%); infection, 10 (1.19%); femoral notching, 10 (1.19%); transient nerve palsy, 8 (0.95%); acetabular loosening, 6 (0.71%); hematoma, 5 (0.60%); and stress fracture, 4 (0.48%). The fractures occurred mostly in patients older than 60 years.     

Metal-on-metal surface replacement: a triumph of hope over reason: affirms

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing offers some potential for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the young patient. However, short- and intermediate-term results of the currently available implants have failed to demonstrate advantage over conventional THA. The risks of femoral neck fracture or avascular necrosis have been disappointing early limitations of the procedure. The Australian Joint Registry reports a 5-year revision rate of all hip resurfacings of 3.8%, compared with conventional THAs at 2.8%, and a 9-year cumulative revision rate of 7.2% for hip resurfacings. Recent reports of femoral neck erosion and pseudotumors associated with resurfacing have raised concern about the survivorship of the procedure in some patients. Recently, the British Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency issued an alert over adverse reactions associated with metal-on-metal THAs, with particular concern expressed about hip resurfacings. Acetabular bone stock may not be conserved when large-diameter femoral head components are used, depending on the surgical technique and implant design. In hip resurfacing, the minimum diameter femoral component avoids notching of the femoral neck; thus, larger diameter acetabular components may be necessary to accommodate the femoral component. Hip resurfacing is contraindicated in cases of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, especially with cysts >1 cm in diameter, with severe slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and in some posttraumatic arthroses; furthermore, the biomechanics of the resurfaced hip appear to be less reliably restored than with conventional THA. The hypothesis that resurfacing is a more conservative procedure than conventional THA remains unproven at this time. Given the documented intermediate failure rates of resurfacing, metal-on-polyethylene is the more successful implant choice.     

Long-Term Outcomes After Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty With a 28-mm Head: A 17- to 23-Year Follow-Up Study of a Previous Report

Background

Second-generation, metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA) using a 28-mm head has shown favorable results compared with large head MoM THA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes of cementless primary MoM THA with a 28-mm head and the incidence of osteolysis using computed tomography.

Fracture of the femoral alignment stem of a hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A case report

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty has become increasingly popular for the treatment of osteoarthritis in a younger patient population. While the initial complication of femoral neck fracture is being addressed, we describe a fracture of the femoral alignment stem in a component two years from the primary procedure.     

Conventional versus resurfacing total hip arthroplasty. A long-term prospective study of concomitant bilateral implantation of prostheses

Fifty patients requiring bilateral total hip arthroplasty underwent a concomitant conventional hip arthroplasty on one side and an articular resurfacing procedure on the other, done by the senior one of us (M. A. R.). The average age of the patients was sixty-two years (range, twenty-one to eighty-seven years), and forty-seven of them were followed with serial radiographs and clinical evaluation for one year or more. The length of follow-up was five years for thirty-four patients with both prostheses intact. The average pain score for all hips at three years postoperatively was 5.5 points. Although the majority of patients at each follow-up interval did not prefer one procedure to the other, the conventional arthroplasty was significantly superior for those who had a preference, and radiographic evaluation revealed a statistically significant increased incidence of acetabular lucency at the bone-cement interface of the resurfacing arthroplasty at one, two, three, five, and seven years postoperatively (p less than 0.002). Two of the conventional prostheses were revised during this time-period (one because of infection and one, a broken stem) whereas thirteen (26 per cent) of the resurfacing prostheses were revised (eight hips had femoral loosening, five with concomitant acetabular loosening; three had acetabular loosening; and one had a femoral neck fracture) at an average of fifty-two months postoperatively (p less than 0.001).     

The evolution of hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, a significant recent development in hip arthroplasty, preserves proximal femoral bone stock, optimizes stress transfer to the proximal femur, and offers inherent stability and optimal range of movement. The results of hip resurfacing in the 1970s and 1980s were disappointing, and the procedure was largely abandoned by the mid-1980s. The renaissance of metal-on-metal articulations for total hip arthroplasty has enabled the introduction of new hip resurfacings, and many implant manufacturers have introduced such systems. Early results are encouraging, and complications commonly seen in the 1970s and 1980s, such as early implant loosening and femoral neck fracture, are rare. Background research and better understanding of implant failure suggest that current hip resurfacing technology has developed beyond that of an experimental procedure.     

Femoral Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An 11-Year Retrospective Comparison of 4013 Cases

BackgroundThe optimal femoral fixation method remains unclear. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (739 hips) with cemented femoral components; group 2 (3274 hips) with uncemented femoral components.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, and radiographic measurements. Groups were consecutive, so cemented cases had longer follow-up. However, all patients from both groups were at least 2 years out from surgery. Two-year clinical and radiographic data were compared. Longer-term comparison data as well as Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves specifically focusing on femoral failure modes were analyzed.ResultsKaplan-Meier 10-year implant survivorship using nontraumatic femoral failure as an end point was 98.9% for the cemented and 100% for the uncemented femoral component. The uncemented, group 2 cases showed a significantly lower raw failure rate (1.1% vs 4.6%), 2-year failure rate (0.8% vs 2.8%), 2-year femoral failure rate (0.4% vs 0.9%), and a lower combined rate of femoral complications and failures (0.6% vs 1.8%). In cases that did not fail, patient mean clinical scores, pain scores, and combined range of motion were all significantly better for group 2.ConclusionWe have demonstrated that in the fully porous-coated ReCap device, uncemented femoral fixation is superior to cemented fixation at 11 years follow-up (0.0% vs 1.1% late femoral loosening) in this single-surgeon cohort. Early femoral fractures also reduced from 0.8% to 0.3%, but this may be partially or completely due to a new bone density management program. This study demonstrates better femoral implant survivorship for the uncemented device compared to the cemented femoral resurfacing component for this implant design.     

Hybrid total hip arthroplasty using specifically-designed stems for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. A minimum five-year follow-up study

A 4-U hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) system was specifically designed for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Straight stem with an appropriate offset and various size variations are advantages. We followed 128 hips in 124 patients, 13 men and 111 women, for a mean of 6.5 years (range, 5.0–7.5 years). Two acetabular and femoral components in two patients had been revised for infection, one acetabular component had been revised for recurrent dislocation, and one femoral component had been revised for periprosthetic femoral fracture. None of the acetabular or femoral components were revised for loosening or were found to be loose at follow-up. The Harris hip score increased from a preoperative average of 42 points to 88 points at the most recent follow-up. Primary THA using the 4-U system had a good mid-term result in patients with DDH. This system could be applied for all patients including those with the narrowest and deformed femurs.