No Difference in Dislocation Rates Comparing Large Diameter Jumbo Femoral Heads and Dual-Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundDual-mobility (DM) bearings reduce instability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM bearings are costly and reports of corrosion have recently emerged. Furthermore, no study has compared DM to standard bearings with large diameter femoral heads ≥40-mm. This study’s purpose was to compare postoperative dislocation rates of standard and DM bearings with large femoral heads after revision THA.MethodsA retrospective review of 301 consecutive revision THAs was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.1 months. To isolate the effect of the double articulation, standard and DM bearings with femoral heads ≥40-mm were compared. Outcomes were postoperative dislocation and reoperation within 90 days.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 182 standard bearings and 75 DM bearings. There were no differences in revision indication comparing standard and DM bearings (P = .258). Overall dislocation rate was 8.6% (22 of 257). The dislocation rate was 5.7% for standard bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads compared with 6.9% in DM bearings with ≥40-mm femoral heads (P = 1.000). In multivariate analysis, lower body mass index (odds ratio 1.72), female sex (odds ratio 2.01), and decreased outer femoral head diameter–to–cup component size ratio (odds ratio 1.64) were predictors of postoperative dislocation regardless of bearing type.ConclusionThis study showed no difference in dislocation rates between standard and DM bearings when comparing similar femoral head diameters of ≥40-mm used in revision THAs. Considering the cost and potential deleterious issues associated with additional interfaces, DM bearings should be used judiciously considering similar results may be achieved with single-articulation bearings using large femoral heads.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Revision for Aseptic Loosening of Highly Porous Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 20,993 Total Hip Replacements

BackgroundHighly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have a high coefficient of friction and ultraporous surfaces to enhance bone ingrowth and osseointegration in total hip arthroplasty (THA). There have been concerns with the development of early radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular components. It is unclear whether these concerns relate to a specific implant or the entire class. The aim of this study is to compare the revision rates for aseptic loosening of highly porous acetabular combinations in primary THA using data from a large joint replacement registry.MethodsData were retrieved from the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for the study period September 1999 to December 2019. All primary THA procedures recorded and performed for osteoarthritis using the most common combinations for each highly porous acetabular component with highly cross-linked polyethylene and a 32-mm or 36-mm femoral head were included. The primary outcome measure was revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Results were adjusted for patient age and gender.ResultsThere were 20,993 primary THA procedures performed for osteoarthritis using a highly porous acetabular component across 6 combinations. Relative to the POLARSTEM/R3 (StikTite), the Exeter V40/Tritanium had a significantly higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.74, P = .014). There was no difference between any other highly porous acetabular component combination and no late revisions for aseptic loosening.ConclusionHighly porous-coated titanium acetabular components have low rates of aseptic loosening with long-term follow-up. A difference between components may exist.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

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.     

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.     

Increased Synovial Inflammatory Markers in Aseptic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation

BackgroundIn cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, a synovial fluid aspiration is often performed to evaluate for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It is currently unclear how aseptic dislocation of a THA influences synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear percentage (PMN%). The primary aim of this study is to investigate the influence of THA dislocation on synovial WBC count and PMN%.MethodsTwenty-eight patients who underwent a synovial aspiration of a THA between 2014 and 2019 were identified and enrolled in our case-control study. Patients with an aseptic THA dislocation and synovial hip aspiration were matched against patients without dislocation, patients undergoing hip aspiration before aseptic THA revision surgery, and patients undergoing hip aspiration before septic THA revision surgery.ResultsSynovial WBC count was significantly increased in the dislocation vs aseptic THA revision group (P = .015), as well as between the septic revision group vs dislocation and aseptic THA revision group (both P < .001). The PMN% did not differ significantly between the dislocation and aseptic revision groups (P = .294). Mean C-reactive protein values were 12.4 ± 14.9 mg/dL in THA dislocation, 24.1 ± 37.7 mg/dL in THA without infection compared to 85.7 ± 84.9 mg/dL in THA infection group (P < .001).ConclusionThis study shows that THA dislocation has a significant impact on synovial WBC count in joint aspiration. Our data suggest that in the setting of THA dislocation, synovial WBC and PMN% may not be the best method to evaluate for PJI. Further research should be performed to establish new thresholds for these synovial inflammatory markers in the setting of THA dislocation and PJI.Level of evidenceLevel III; retrospective trial.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BackgroundWhile common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m². Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years).ResultsThe 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24).ConclusionRevision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Can Total Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture Be Safely Performed by Trainees? A Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundNo research is available comparing trainee and consultant outcomes for total hip arthroplasty (THA) for hip fracture. The aim of our study is to determine whether trainee-performed and consultant-performed THA produced equivalent radiological outcomes and complication rates for this patient cohort.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study at our institution, with inclusion of patients who underwent a primary THA for hip fracture between March 30, 2017 and February 07, 2019. Relevant perioperative and outcome data were collected through electronic records. Radiological outcomes were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Follow-up was performed until August 07, 2019.ResultsEighty-seven patients were included in the study. The mean length of follow-up was 13 months (range, 6-29). Forty-three patients underwent consultant-led operations and 44 underwent trainee-performed (ST3-ST8) operations under consultant supervision. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding complication risk (no recorded dislocation, infection requiring reoperation, revision or 30-day mortality in either group). There were also no significant differences between trainees and consultants regarding the radiological outcomes of mean acetabular component inclination (37.2° vs 36.7°, respectively, P = .74); offset difference (+7.1 mm vs +7.2 mm, respectively, P = .91); leg length difference (+6.4 mm vs +5.7 mm, respectively, P = .56); and barrack grade for femoral cement mantle.ConclusionThis study suggests that radiological and safety outcomes for trainees performing THA for hip fracture with appropriate supervision are equivalent to consultant surgeons. However, given the low event rate of complications, a larger study is required to determine whether there is any statistically significant difference.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Large Diameter Metal on Metal Articulations. Comparison of Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

The use of large diameter metal bearing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) increased in popularity in the last decade. More recent literature has highlighted the effect of head size in patient outcomes. Data was obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOA-NJRR) to evaluate the Birmingham (MoM) bearing surface when used with THA and HRA. There is no difference in the overall rate of revision between the THA and HRA but head size has a significant effect on revision rate. The data show that small diameter metal bearings in HRA (below 50 mm) have a higher rate of revision than large diameter metal bearings in HRA (equal to and above 50 mm) (P < .001). Conversely the large diameter metal bearings in THA have a higher rate of revision than the small diameter metal bearings in THA (P = .027). The revision rate for large diameter HRA compared to small diameter THA is not significantly different P = .670. We recommend caution when choosing either a large diameter (≥ 50 mm) metal on metal THA or small diameter (< 50 mm) HRA.     

Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Fractured Neck of Femur Revised to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes Are Influenced by Patient Age Not Articulation Options

BackgroundHip hemiarthroplasty is the most common arthroplasty option for fractured neck of femur (FNOF). Revision to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is occasionally required. This study aimed to assess the outcome of hemiarthroplasty revised to THA and to assess the impact of femoral head size, dual mobility (DM), and constrained liners.MethodsAll aseptic 1^st revisions reported to the Australian Joint Replacement Registry after hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF when a THA was used as the revision procedure were included from September 1999 to December 2019. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision for all-causes and dislocation. The impact of prosthesis factors on revision THA was assessed: standard head THA (≤32 mm), large head THA (≥36 mm), DM, and constrained liners. Outcomes were compared using Kaplan Meyer and competing risk.ResultsThere were 96,861 hemiarthroplasties performed, with 985 revised to THA. The most common reasons for 1^st revision were loosening (49.3%), fracture (17.7%), and dislocation (11.0%). Of the hemiarthroplasty procedures revised to THA, 76 had a 2^nd revision. The most common reasons for 2^nd revision were fracture (27.6%), dislocation (26.3%), loosening (23.7%), and infection (18.4%). Femoral head size, DM, or constrained liner use did not alter the incidence of all-cause 2^nd revision. This did not change when solely looking at patients still alive. A 2^nd revision was more likely in patients aged <75 years.ConclusionThe outcome of hemiarthroplasty performed for FNOF revised to THA is influenced by patient age, not by the articulation used.     

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.     

Acetabular Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision: A Summary of Operative Factors,Outcomes, and Comparison of Approaches

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents a greater risk to patients than primary THA, and surgical approach may impact outcomes. This study aimed to summarize acetabular revisions at our institution and to compare outcomes between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.MethodsA series of 379 acetabular revision THAs performed from January 2010 through August 2022 was retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors were summarized for all revisions and compared between direct anterior and posterior revision THA.ResultsThe average time to acetabular revision THA was 10 years (range, 0.04 to 44.1), with mechanical failure (36.7%) and metallosis (25.6%) being the most prevalent reasons for revision. No differences in age, body mass index, or sex were noted between groups. Anterior revision patients had a significantly shorter length of stay (2.2 versus 3.2 days, P = .003) and rate of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (7.5 versus 25.2%, P = .008). In the 90-day postoperative period, 9.2% of patients returned to the emergency department (n = 35) and twelve patients (3.2%) experienced a dislocation. There were 13.2% (n = 50) of patients having a rerevision during the follow-up period with a significant difference between anterior and posterior approaches (3.8 versus 14.7%, respectively, P = .049).ConclusionThis study provides some evidence that the anterior approach may be protective against skilled nursing facility discharge and rerevision and contributes to decreased lengths of stay. We recommend surgeons select the surgical approach for revision THA based on clinical preferences and patient factors.     

Evaluation of Dislocation Risk Factors With Total Hip Arthroplasty in Developmental Hip Dysplasia Patients: A Multivariate Analysis

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the risk factors for dislocation in patients diagnosed with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) who underwent total hip arthroplasty.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 40 patients who developed dislocation and compared them with 400 patients in the control group without hip instability. Patients-, surgery-, and implant-related factors were investigated. Risk factors were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.ResultsThe mean follow-up period was 32.3 months. The mean time to dislocation was 4.4 months. There were 7 men (17.5%) and 33 women (82.5%) in the dislocation group and 83 men (20.7%) and 317 women (79.3%) in the control group (P = .627). Diabetes mellitus (DM; P = .032) and history of previous hip surgery for DDH were associated with dislocation (P < .001). The subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy (P = .001), acetabular inclination (P = .037), acetabular anteversion (P < .001), femoral head size (P < .001), and postoperative infection (P = .003) were associated with dislocation. Major predictors of hip dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in patients with DDH were previous hip surgery (odds ratio [OR], 6.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-24.6; P = .004), high hip center (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.31-6.38; P = .008), DM (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.06-6.80; P = .037), and acetabular inclination (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.09-6.26; P = .03).ConclusionPatients with DM and previous hip surgery should be informed about increased dislocation rates. Using a larger head diameter and restoration of the true hip rotation center are essential to prevent hip dislocation in these patients. Furthermore, accurate positioning of the acetabular inclination and anteversion are also important.     

Outcome and Risk Factors Associated with Failures of Isolated Bearing Exchange for Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundIt is often challenging to decide whether to revise only the bearing or femoral acetabular component in the setting of progressive osteolysis without component loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we aimed to (1) compare the survivorship of isolated bearing exchange and single/both component revision for patients with periprosthetic osteolysis without component loosening, and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with failures of isolated bearing exchange.MethodsA total of 228 consecutive cases of revision THA for progressive osteolysis without component loosening was evaluated in 2 groups: (1) 124 component revision and (2) 104 isolated bearing exchange. The primary outcome was survival, with failure defined as repeat revision or reoperation for any reason. Patient risk factors, such as demographics and medical comorbidities, were also analyzed.ResultsThere was no significant difference in survivorship between the component revision group and the bearing exchange group at 10 years (85% vs 82%; P = .89). There was no progression of osteolysis on radiographs at last follow-up for patients with isolated bearing change. Univariate regression modeling demonstrated that renal disease was associated with failure of isolated bearing exchange after revision THA.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that isolated bearing exchange is associated with similar outcomes compared with component revision for aseptic osteolysis without loosening, demonstrating that isolated bearing exchange is a viable option for selected patients with osteolysis in the setting of well-fixed THA components. This provides clinically useful information for surgeons in the surgical treatment of THA patients with wear and osteolysis without component loosening.     

Mild Coronal Stem Malalignment Does Not Negatively Impact Survivorship or Clinical Results in Uncemented Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties With Dual-Tapered Implants

BackgroundProper component positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is crucial for implant fixation and hip stability. The purpose of this study is to assess if neutral coronal stem alignment (0° ± 3°) improved long-term survivorship in uncemented femoral components.MethodsBetween 2005 and 2010, 1028 primary THAs were performed with 2 contemporary dual-tapered, proximally coated uncemented stem types. Alignment was measured immediately postoperatively and at most recent follow-up. In total, 978 femoral stems (95%) were within 0° ± 3° of the neutral anatomic coronal axis, and the 50 stems (5%) outside that range were considered outliers (3.1° of valgus to 4.8° of varus). Outcomes analyzed included implant survivorship, Harris Hip Scores, and incidence of dislocation. Mean follow-up was 5 years.ResultsSurvivorship free of aseptic femoral component loosening was 99.3% and 98.2% at 5 and 8 years in the neutral group vs 100% at 5 and 8 years in the outlier group (P = .98). Survivorship free of femoral component revision for any reason was 99.1% and 97.3% at 5 and 8 years vs 100% at 5 and 8 years, respectively (P = .80). Harris Hip Scores were similar (89 in both groups; P = .84) at most recent follow-up. The incidence of mild to moderate thigh pain was also similar in both groups (6.1% vs 6%, P = .85). The incidence of dislocation was 1.5% at 8 years, and similar between both groups (P = .77).ConclusionSlight malalignment of contemporary dual-tapered uncemented THA femoral components does not appear to negatively impact survivorship or clinical outcomes, which is in contrast to cemented femoral components.Level of evidence IIICase-control study.     

The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems

BackgroundThe cementless Corail is one of the most commonly used stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in revision rate for smaller stems.MethodsAll primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Joint Replacement Registry from September 1999 to December 2017 performed for osteoarthritis using the Corail stem, a cementless acetabular cup, modern bearing surfaces (ceramic/ceramic, ceramic/cross-linked polyethylene, and metal/cross-linked polyethylene), and 28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm head sizes were included. The primary outcome measure was femoral component revision. Data were analyzed and adjusted for age, gender, and head size. Further analysis investigated the effects of surgical approach.ResultsThere was 41,265 primary THAs recorded. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 13 years was 7.7% (5.5, 10.7) for stem sizes 8 and 9 and 3.0% (2.4, 3.8) for sizes 10-20 (P < .001). When adjusted for age and gender, the sizes 8 and 9 collared (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.22 [3.84-10.06], P < .001) and collarless (HR: 3.28 [2.41-4.45], P < .001) had a higher CPR than the collared and collarless size 10-20. The size 8 and 9 stems performed with an anterior approach had the highest CPR (HR: 14.44 [6.21-33.56], P < .001). The main reason for revision of size 8 and 9 femoral stems was loosening (65.2%, compared to 31.5% for 10-20 femoral stems).ConclusionsSmaller Corail stems have 4 times the rate of revision compared with the larger femoral sizes with loosening being the most common diagnosis. This is most evident when using an anterior approach.     

Contemporary Porous Titanium Acetabular Components for Total Hip Arthroplasty After Pelvic Radiation

BackgroundPatients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) following pelvic radiation have historically had poor survivorship free of aseptic acetabular component loosening. However, several series have reported improved results with tantalum acetabular components. The purpose of this study is to assess implant survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of contemporary, porous titanium acetabular components in the setting of prior pelvic radiation.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 33 patients (38 hips) with prior pelvic radiation between 2006 and 2016 who underwent primary THA. The mean overall pelvic radiation dose was 6300 cGy with a mean latency period to THA of 5 years. The most common acetabular component was Pinnacle (DePuy Synthes) in 76%. Eight-seven percent of cups were fixed with screws. The mean age at primary THA was 74 years, 76% were male, and the mean body mass index was 30 kg/m². Mean follow-up was 5 years.ResultsThe 10-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening, free of any revision, and free of any reoperation were 100%, 89%, and 89%, respectively, when accounting for death as a competing risk. There were 3 revisions; one each for taper corrosion, recurrent dislocation, and infection. Radiographically, all cups had evidence of osteointegration and none had radiographic evidence of loosening. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 50 to 84 postoperatively (P < .0001).ConclusionContemporary porous titanium acetabular components with supplemental screws provided excellent implant fixation in patients with prior therapeutic pelvic radiation. At 10 years, 100% of these components were free of revision for aseptic loosening and 100% were radiographically well-fixed.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, Therapeutic.     

EOS Imaging is Accurate and Reproducible for Preoperative Total Hip Arthroplasty Templating

BackgroundTemplating is a critical part of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The accuracy of templating on images acquired with EOS is unknown. This study sought to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of templating for THA using EOS imaging to conventional digital radiographs.MethodsForty-three consecutive primary unilateral THAs were retrospectively templated, six months postoperatively, using preoperative 2D EOS imaging and conventional radiographs. Two blinded observers templated each case for acetabular and femoral component size and femoral offset. The retrospectively templated sizes were compared to the sizes selected during surgery. Interobserver agreement was calculated, and the influence of demographic variables was explored.ResultsEOS templating predicted the exact acetabular and femoral size in 71% and 66% of cases, respectively, and to within one size in 98% of cases. The acetabular and femoral component size was more likely to be templated to the exact size using EOS compared to conventional imaging (P < .05). The femoral component offset choice was accurately predicted in 83% of EOS cases compared to 80% of conventional templates (P = .341). Component size and offset were not influenced by patient age, gender, laterality, or BMI. Interobserver agreement was excellent for acetabular (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94) and femoral (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) component size.ConclusionsPreoperative templating for THA using EOS imaging is accurate, with an excellent interobserver agreement. EOS exposes patients to less radiation than traditional radiographs, and its three-dimensional applications should be explored as they may further enhance preoperative plans.