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.     

Conversion of Hip Hemiarthroplasty to Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing a Dual-Mobility Construct Compared With Large Femoral Heads

Background

Conversion of hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty (THA) has a historically high, up to 20%, postoperative dislocation rate. As such, dual-mobility (DM) constructs are an attractive option to mitigate this complication. We analyzed survivorship free of revision, complications, and clinical outcomes of hemiarthroplasties conversion to THAs utilizing DM constructs compared with large femoral heads (≥36 mm).

Dual Mobility and Conventional Bearings Have Comparably Low Dislocation Rates for Anterior-Based Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundDual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in select patients, especially those undergoing revision surgery. The use of DM bearings has not been studied as extensively for use in primary THA. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes following primary THA with anterior-based approaches between patients receiving DM bearings vs standard bearing hip implants.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary THA through an anterior-based approach. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between the standard and DM bearing patients to control for possible risk factors for instability. Functional outcomes, dislocations, and aseptic revisions were identified for each patient. The effect of DM on postoperative outcomes was determined using univariate statistical analyses.ResultsIn total, 250 DM bearings were compared to 753 standard bearings. We found no difference in dislocation rate between single bearings and DM bearings (0.53% vs 0.4%). There was 1 DM dislocation occurring in a liner with outer diameter of 38 mm. There were no DM dislocations with outer diameter >38 mm. Aseptic revision surgery was more common in DM. This difference was driven by higher incidence of femoral periprosthetic fracture. There were no differences in functional outcomes.ConclusionDislocation rates are comparably low between DM bearings and standard bearings for THA done using an anterior approach to the hip. Further investigation is needed to determine if specific patient populations may benefit from DM implants for primary THA when an anterior approach to the hip is being used.     

THA for a Fractured Femoral Neck: Comparing the Revision and Dislocation Rates of Standard-head,Large-head,Dual-mobility,and Constrained Liners

BackgroundTHA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known.Questions/purposesIn patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery?MethodsData were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years.ResultsWhen adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point.ConclusionThe Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — Recurrent dislocation is the commonest cause of early revision of a total hip arthropasty (THA). We examined the effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on revision rate for dislocation, and for other reasons, after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Patients and methods — We analyzed data on 166,231 primary THAs and 3,754 subsequent revision THAs performed between 2007 and 2015, registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Revision rate for dislocation, and for all other causes, were calculated by competing-risk analysis at 6-year follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression ratios (HRs) were used for comparisons.

Results — Posterolateral approach was associated with higher dislocation revision risk (HR =1) than straight lateral, anterolateral, and anterior approaches (HR =0.5–0.6). However, the risk of revision for all other reasons (especially stem loosening) was higher with anterior and anterolateral approaches (HR =1.2) and lowest with posterolateral approach (HR =1). For all approaches, 32-mm heads reduced the risk of revision for dislocation compared to 22- to 28-mm heads (HR =1 and 1.6, respectively), while the risk of revision for other causes remained unchanged. 36-mm heads increasingly reduced the risk of revision for dislocation but only with the posterolateral approach (HR =0.6), while the risk of revision for other reasons was unchanged. With the anterior approach, 36-mm heads increased the risk of revision for other reasons (HR =1.5).

Interpretation — Compared to the posterolateral approach, direct anterior and anterolateral approaches reduce the risk of revision for dislocation, but at the cost of more stem revisions and other revisions. For all approaches, there is benefit in using 32-mm heads instead of 22- to 28-mm heads. For the posterolateral approach, 36-mm heads can safely further reduce the risk of revision for dislocation.     

Femoral Head Length Impact on Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in 36 Millimeter Cobalt Chrome-on-Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Articulations

BackgroundDespite concerns for corrosion, dislocation, and periprosthetic femur fractures, minimal literature has investigated the effect of adjusting femoral head length on outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of femoral head length on the risk of any revision and reoperation following cobalt chromium (CoCr)-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) THAs.MethodsBetween 2004 and 2018, we identified 1,187 primary THAs with CoCr-on-HXLPE articulations using our institutional total joint registry. The mean age at THA was 71 years (range, 19-97), 40% were women, and mean body mass index was 30 (range, 10-68). All THAs using 36 mm diameter femoral heads were included. Neutral (0 mm), positive, or negative femoral head lengths were used in 42, 31, and 27% of the THAs, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was assessed. The mean follow-up was 7 years (range, 2-16).ResultsThe 10-year survivorships free of any revision or reoperation were 94 and 92%, respectively. A total of 47 revisions were performed, including periprosthetic femur fracture (17), periprosthetic joint infection (8), dislocation (7), aseptic loosening of either component (6), corrosion (4), and other (5). Nonrevision reoperations included wound revision (11), open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fracture (4), and abductor repair (2). Multivariable analyses found no significant associations between femoral head length and revision or reoperation.ConclusionAltering femoral head lengths in 36 mm CoCr-on-HXLPE THAs did not affect outcomes. Surgeons should select femoral head lengths that optimize hip stability and center of rotation.Level of EvidenceIII.     

Modern Dual-Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the outcomes of dual-mobility (DM) cups in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Specifically, we evaluated the following: (1) all-cause and aseptic survivorship rates; (2) dislocation rates; (3) complications; and (4) clinical outcomes reported using validated health status measures.

Comparison of the risk of revision in cementless total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-polyethylene bearings

Background and purpose — Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings were introduced in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to reduce problems related to polyethylene wear. We compared the 9-year revision risk for cementless CoC THA and for cementless metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA.

Patients and methods — In this prospective, population-based study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, we identified all the primary cementless THAs that had been performed from 2002 through 2009 (n = 25,656). Of these, 1,773 THAs with CoC bearings and 9,323 THAs with MoP bearings were included in the study. To estimate the relative risk (RR) of revision, we used regression with the pseudo-value approach and treated death as a competing risk.

Results — 444 revisions were identified: 4.0% for CoC THA (71 of 1,773) and 4.0% for MoP THA (373 of 9,323). No statistically significant difference in the risk of revision for any reason was found for CoC and MoP bearings after 9 years of follow-up (adjusted RR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.72–2.4). Revision rates due to component failure were 0.5% (n = 8) for CoC bearings and 0.1% (n = 6) for MoP bearings (p < 0.001). 6 patients with CoC bearings (0.34%) underwent revision due to ceramic fracture.

Interpretation — When compared to the “standard” MoP bearings, CoC THA had a 33% higher (though not statistically significantly higher) risk of revision for any reason at 9 years.     

Robotic Assistance for Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Lower Risk of Revision for Dislocation When Compared to Manual Techniques

BackgroundRobotic-assistance total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) and computer navigation THA (CN-THA) have been shown to improve accuracy of component positioning compared to manual techniques; however, controversy exists regarding clinical benefit. Moreover, these technologies may expose patients to risks. The purpose of this study is to compare rates of intraoperative fracture and complications requiring reoperation within 1 year for posterior approach RA-THA, CN-THA, and THA with no technology (Manual-THA).MethodsIn total, 13,802 primary, unilateral, elective, posterior approach THAs (1770 RA-THAs, 3155 CN-THAs, and 8877 Manual-THAs) were performed at a single institution between 2016 and 2020. Intraoperative fractures and reoperations within 1 year of the index procedure were identified. Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weight based on age, gender, body mass index, femoral cementation, history of spine fusion, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Logistic regression was performed to create odds ratios for complications. Additional regression analysis for dislocation was performed, adjusting for dual mobility and femoral head size.ResultsThere were no differences in intraoperative fracture and postoperative complication rates between the groups (P = .521). RA-THA had a 0.3 odds ratio (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.9, P = .046) compared to Manual-THA for reoperation due to dislocation. CN-THA had an odds ratio of 3.0 for reoperation due to dislocation (95% confidence interval 0.8-11.3, P = .114) compared to RA-THA. The remaining complication odds ratios, including those for infection, loosening, dehiscence, and “other” were similar between the groups.ConclusionRA-THA is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation within 1 year of index surgery, when compared to Manual-THA performed through the posterior approach.     

Is there a reduction in risk of revision when 36-mm heads instead of 32 mm are used in total hip arthroplasty for patients with proximal femur fractures?: A matched analysis of 5,030 patients with a median of 2.5 years’ follow-up between 2006 and 2016 in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

Background and purpose — 32-mm heads are widely used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Scandinavia, while the proportion of 36-mm heads is increasing as they are expected to increase THA stability. We investigated whether the use of 36-mm heads in THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) is associated with a lower risk of revision compared with 32-mm heads.Patients and methods — We included 5,030 patients operated with THA due to PFF with 32- or 36-mm heads from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Each patient with a 36-mm head was matched with a patient with a 32-mm head, using propensity score. The patients were operated between 2006 and 2016, with a metal or ceramic head on a polyethylene bearing. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for revision for any reason and revision due to dislocation for 36-mm heads compared with 32-mm heads.Results — 36-mm heads had an HR of 0.9 (CI 0.7–1.2) for revision for any reason and 0.8 (CI 0.5–1.3) for revision due to dislocation compared with 32-mm heads at a median follow-up of 2.5 years (interquartile range 1–4.4).Interpretation — We were not able to demonstrate any clinically relevant reduction of the risk of THA revision for any reason or due to dislocation when 36-mm heads were used versus 32-mm. Residual confounding due to lack of data on patient comorbidities and body mass index could bias our results.

During the past years total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become the preferred treatment option for displaced femoral neck fractures in even younger (55–64 years) patients (Rogmark et al. 2017). Previous studies have shown an increased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients receiving THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) compared with patients operated due to primary osteoarthritis (OA) (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012). The risk of THA dislocation in fracture patients varies widely from as low as 5% (Tabori-Jensen et al. 2019), especially when dual mobility cups (DMCs) are used, up to 6–18% (Burgers et al. 2012, Johansson 2014, Noticewala et al. 2018) with conventional cups. The risk of THA revision due to dislocation has been reported as even lower, ranging from 0.5 to 0.7% in national register studies (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012), as not all unstable THAs are revised. According to the above-mentioned studies, increased age, male sex, the use of a posterior approach, and smaller head sizes are associated with increased risk of revision due to dislocation. To counteract the risk of dislocation, bigger head sizes have been used as they increase the impingement-free range of motion (Burroughs et al. 2005, Tsuda et al. 2016) and jumping distance of THA (Sariali et al. 2009). During the past years, the use of larger heads in THA has increased with 28-mm continuously declining and 32- and 36-mm increasing (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). However, register studies performed on patients with displaced femoral neck fracture (Jameson et al. 2012, Cebatorius et al. 2015) have not demonstrated any superiority of larger heads over smaller ones regarding risk of revision, especially due to dislocation. This effect has only been demonstrated in studies performed on a case mix of hip diagnoses that have reported an increased risk of revision due to dislocation when 28-mm or smaller heads are used compared with 32-mm or larger heads (Hailer et al. 2012, Kostensalo et al. 2013).Most of the above-mentioned register studies have used 28-mm heads as reference, which are rarely used nowadays (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). Patients receiving THA after PFF have a higher risk for revision than patients with OA and should preferably be studied separately, setting 32 mm as contemporary standard of reference. We therefore investigated if increasing head size from 32 to 36 mm is associated with a decreased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients with PFF in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We hypothesized that the risk is lower when 36-mm heads are used.     

Intraoperative Complications and Early Return to the Operating Room in Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed Through the Direct Anterior and Posterior Approaches. An Institutional Experience of Surgeons After Their Learning Curve

BackgroundProponents of the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) claim a faster recovery, whereas critics claim an increased risk of early femoral complications. This study analyzed intraoperative and postoperative complications requiring reoperation within one year after THA through the DAA and posterior approach (PA).MethodsA total of 2348 elective, unilateral DAA THAs in patients with osteoarthritis performed between 2016 and 2019 were matched 1:1 for age (±5 years), gender, body mass index (±5), and femoral fixation with 2348 patients who underwent PA THA during the same period. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used. Odds ratios were reported for the occurrence of intraoperative femoral fracture, postoperative femoral fracture, infection, dislocation, and other etiologies requiring reoperation within one year.ResultsIntraoperative femoral fracture occurred in 12 DAA (0.5%) and 14 PA (0.6%) patients. Twenty-five patients (1.06%) in the DAA and 28 (1.19%) in the PA group underwent reoperation within the first year. Reoperations were due to periprosthetic fracture (40%), infection (28%), dislocation (23%), and other (9%). Regression analysis revealed no difference in intraoperative femoral fracture (odds ratio (OR): 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40-1.86, P = .69), postoperative femoral fracture (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.47-2.60, P = .83), infection (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.53-5.23, P = .44), or reoperation within one year for other reasons (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.25-9.00, P = .65). DAA had fewer dislocations requiring reoperation (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.04-0.91, P = .02).ConclusionThis comparative study did not find differences in intraoperative or postoperative fracture or infection between DAA and PA. DAA was associated with a lower likelihood of reoperation for dislocation within one year of surgery.     

Cementation of a Dual Mobility Construct in Recurrently Dislocating and High Risk Patients Undergoing Revision Total Arthroplasty

Background

Recurrent instability remains a challenge after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report the outcomes of cementing a cementless dual mobility (DM) component into a stable acetabular shell for the treatment and/or prevention of instability in revision THA.

Computer Navigation vs Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Medicare Database Analysis

BackgroundComputer-assisted surgery (CAS) is applied to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an attempt to optimize implant positioning. The effect of CAS on postoperative complications after THA remains unknown. Our study aims to assess the change in complication rates when CAS is used in THA.MethodsThe Medicare database was studied from 2005 to 2012. All THAs performed with CAS were identified. A total of 64,944 THAs were identified, including 5412 CAS-THAs and 59,532 conventional THAs. Medical and surgical adverse events were collected at various time points.ResultsCAS-THA was not associated with a decreased rate of dislocation at 30 days (1.0% vs 1.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; P = .310), 90 days (1.1% vs 1.4%; OR, 1.23; P = .090), or 2 years (2.3% vs 2.3%; OR, 1.01; P = .931). CAS-THA was associated with a significantly higher rate of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days (0.4% vs 0.6%; OR, 1.46; P = .040) as well as revision THA at 30 days (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 1.43; P = .003) and 90 days (1.2% vs 1.7%; OR, 1.42; P < .002) when compared to conventional THA. CAS-THA was associated with a significantly lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism when compared to conventional THA at all time points (P < .05).ConclusionAdministrative coding data fail to demonstrate any clinically significant reduction in short-term adverse events with CAS-THA. Further study is warranted to evaluate whether the purported benefits of CAS result in a reduction of the adverse events after THA.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: Long-Term Results

BackgroundAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) is a common inflammatory spondyloarthropathy with hip involvement in 40% of patients. With the recent interest in the hip-spine interplay, the purpose of this study was to define the long-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of AS.Methods174 hips in patients with AS treated with revision THA from 1969 to 2016 were identified. Mean age at revision THA was 53 years and 76% were male. Cumulative incidences of any re-revision, reoperation, and dislocation were calculated using a competing risk analysis. Mean follow-up was 13 years.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of any re-revision after index revision THA was 7% at 5 years and 36% at 20 years. Cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 9% at 5 years and 38% at 20 years. Cumulative incidence of dislocation was 6% at 5 years and 8% at 20 years. Revision THAs performed with contemporary implants (2000-2016) had a lower but statistically nonsignificant cumulative incidence of any re-revision when compared with historical implants (before 2000) at 5 years (5% vs 8%), 10 years (11% vs 18%), and 15 years (11% vs 38%) (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.33; P = .016).ConclusionIn this large series of 174 revision THAs in patients with AS, the cumulative incidence of dislocation was 8% at 20 years. The 20-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 36%, which is similar to reported rates in patients with comparable demographic features without AS.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.     

Do Alumina Matrix Composite Bearings Decrease Hip Noises and Bearing Fractures at a Minimum of 5 Years After THA?

Background

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing couples are theoretically attractive in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of low wear, but concerns regarding ceramic fracture and squeaking have arisen. Improved material properties of newer alumina matrix composite (AMC) materials, known as Delta ceramics, may reduce these risks. In addition, the use of thinner liners and larger femoral heads may be helpful clinically to lower the rate of dislocation. However, limited short-term clinical results are available and intermediate-term effects are unclear.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the frequency of bearing-related complications (dissociation, fracture, and noise) with ceramic-on-ceramic AMC bearings in cementless THA? (2) What other complications arose in patients treated with these bearings? (3) What are the Harris hip scores (HHS) and survivorship free from reoperation and revision at a minimum of 5 years after cementless THA performed with AMC bearings?

Methods

Over a 9-month period in 2009, one surgeon performed 125 THAs, of which 100 (80% of the total) were performed with cementless, AMC bearings. During the period in question, the exclusion criteria for this implant were primary THAs with severe acetabular or femoral bone defect and revision THAs. Of these, 94 hips (95%) in 91 patients were available for analysis at a minimum of 5 years (range, 5–6 years), because five patients (six hips) had died. Mean age at the time of arthroplasty was 55 ± 14 years. Prostheses with an identical design and Biolox^® Delta ceramics were used in all patients. Noise was classified into squeaking, clicking, grinding, and popping. Ceramic fracture, dislocation, and any other complications associated with the use of AMC ceramics were also investigated. Clinical evaluation included the modified HHS preoperatively and at each followup. Survivorship free from reoperation and revision was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Of 91 patients, four developed bearing-related complications, including one with liner dissociation despite initial square seating and three with clicking. No patients had ceramic fractures. A single event of perioperative dislocation occurred in one patient and postoperative periprosthetic fracture occurred in two hips. Mean HHS improved from 56 to 93 points at the final followup (p < 0.001). Survivorship at 5 years free from reoperation and revision was 96.8% and 97.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

Improved material properties combined with the possible use of larger diameter heads make AMC ceramics a promising alternative bearing option with seemingly comparable clinical outcomes reported by others with conventional ceramic bearings. Despite these encouraging results, however, meticulous technical precautions such as square seating and proper impaction in particular should be taken during liner insertion, because we did observe one liner dissociation and several patients with hip noises.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Does Prior Lumbar Fusion Influence Dislocation Risk in Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture?

BackgroundImmobility of the lumbar spine predicts instability following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine how prior lumbar fusion (LF) influenced dislocation rates and revision rates for patients undergoing THA or hemiarthroplasty (HA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF).MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted utilizing the PearlDiver database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF were identified based on history of LF and whether they underwent THA or HA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 328 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA were at increased risk for 1-year dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, P < .001) and 2-year revision (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 14,217 patients without LF. The 461 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent HA were at increased risk for dislocation (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 42,327 patients without LF. Patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA had higher rates of revision than patients with prior LF who underwent HA for FNF (OR 2.11, P < .001). In patients with prior LF and FNF, THA was associated with significantly increased risk for dislocation (OR 3.07, P < .001) and revision (OR 2.53, P < .001) compared to THA performed for osteoarthritis.ConclusionPatients with prior LF who sustained an FNF and underwent THA or HA were at increased risk for early dislocation and revision compared to those without prior LF. This risk of dislocation and revision is even greater than that observed in patients with prior LF who underwent THA for osteoarthritis.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Dislocation After Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip

BackgroundDebridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a common treatment option for hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, noninfectious outcomes of DAIR such as instability are not well reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors for hip dislocation post-DAIR for PJI of both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsA retrospective chart review identified all patients who underwent DAIR of a primary or revision THA over a 20-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up. A total of 151 patients met inclusion criteria, 19.9% of whom had a post-DAIR dislocation. Demographic and intraoperative variables were obtained. Patients who had modular components exchanged during DAIR to those with increased offset, increased “jump distance”, or a more stable acetabular liner were defined as patients who had “components exchanged to increase stability.” Predictors of hip dislocation post-DAIR were inserted into a multivariate linear regression.ResultsPost-DAIR dislocation rates were 16.3% in primary THAs and 25.4% in revision THAs. In patients who had “components exchanged to increase stability” during hip DAIR, there was at least an 11-fold reduction (1/odds ratio (OR), 0.09) in dislocation risk compared to patients who had no components altered during modular component exchange during hip DAIR (OR, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.44; P < .001), while a 13-fold increased dislocation risk was seen in patients with a history of neuromuscular disease (OR, 13.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-104.09; P = .01).ConclusionsDuring DAIR of hip PJI, surgeons should consider prophylactically exchanging components to increase stability even if components appear stable intraoperatively.     

Dual-Mobility vs Fixed-Bearing Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Under 55 Years of Age: A Single-Institution,Matched-Cohort Analysis

Background

Prosthetic dislocation of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common cause for revision surgery. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings were introduced to mitigate complications; however, their performance in younger patients is unknown. This study compared results of patients <55 years of age with DM vs fixed-bearing (FB) primary THA.