Hydroxyapatite (HA) is the main inorganic component of bone, and HA coating is widely used on acetabular cups in hip arthroplasty. It has been suggested that this surface finish improves cup survival.
All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 with an uncemented acetabular implant that was available either with or without HA coating were identified. 8,043 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with the most common cup types (Harris-Galante, Romanus, and Trilogy) were investigated. A Cox regression model including type of coating, age, sex, primary diagnosis, cup type, and type of stem fixation was used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) for the risk of revision.
HA coating was a risk factor for cup revision due to aseptic loosening (adjusted RR 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3–2). Age at primary arthroplasty of < 50 years, a diagnosis of pediatric hip disease, the use of a cemented stem, and the Romanus and Harris-Galante cup types were also associated with statistically significantly increased risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening.
Our findings question the routine use of HA-coated cups in primary total hip arthroplasty. With some designs, this practice may even increase the risk of loosening—resulting in revision surgery.
Background and purpose
Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to recurrent dislocations is associated with a high risk of persistent instability. We hypothesized that the use of dual-mobility cups would reduce the risk of re-revision due to dislocation after revision THA.
Patients and methods
228 THA cup revisions (in 228 patients) performed due to recurrent dislocations and employing a specific dual-mobility cup (Avantage) were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with re-revision due to dislocation as the primary endpoint and re-revision for any reason as the secondary endpoint. Cox regression models were fitted in order to calculate the influence of various covariates on the risk of re-revision.
58 patients (25%) had been revised at least once prior to the index cup revision. The surgical approach at the index cup revision was lateral in 99 cases (44%) and posterior in 124 cases (56%). Median follow-up was 2 (0–6) years after the index cup revision, and by then 18 patients (8%) had been re-revised for any reason. Of these, 4 patients (2%) had been re-revised due to dislocation. Survival after 2 years with the endpoint revision of any component due to dislocation was 99% (95% CI: 97–100), and it was 93% (CI: 90–97) with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason. Risk factors for subsequent re-revision for any reason were age between 50–59 years at the time of the index cup revision (risk ratio (RR) = 5 when compared with age > 75, CI: 1–23) and previous revision surgery to the relevant joint (RR = 1.7 per previous revision, CI: 1–3).
The risk of re-revision due to dislocation after insertion of dual-mobility cups during revision THA performed for recurrent dislocations appears to be low in the short term. Since most dislocations occur early after revision THA, we believe that this device adequately addresses the problem of recurrent instability. Younger age and prior hip revision surgery are risk factors for further revision surgery. However, problems such as potentially increased liner wear and subsequent aseptic loosening may be associated with the use of such devices in the long term.
Background and purpose
Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation.
Patients and methods
All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis.
Revision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3–1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6–2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3–0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5–14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6–1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA.
Survival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.
Background and purpose
Monoblock acetabular cups represent a subtype of uncemented cups with the polyethylene liner molded into a metal shell, thus eliminating—or at least minimizing—potential backside wear. We hypothesized that the use of monoâ€‹block cups could reduce the incidence of osteolysis and aseptic loosening, and thus improve survival compared to modular designs.
Patients and methods
We identified all 210 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register that used uncemented monoblock cups during the period 1999–2010. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses with adjustment for age, sex, and other variables were used to calculate survival rates and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of the revision risk for any reason. 1,130 modular cups, inserted during the same time period, were used as a control group.
There was a nearly equal sex distribution in both groups. Median age at the index operation was 47 years in the monoblock group and 56 years in the control group (p < 0.001). The cumulative 5-year survival with any revision as the endpoint was 95% (95% CI: 91–98) for monoblock cups and 97% (CI: 96–98) for modular cups (p = 0.6). The adjusted HR for revision of monoblock cups compared to modular cups was 2 (CI: 0.8–6; p = 0.1). The use of 28-mm prosthesis heads rather than 22-mm heads reduced the risk of cup revision (HR = 0.2, CI: 0.1–0.5; p = 0.001).
Both cups showed good medium-term survival rates. There was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between the cup designs. Further review of the current patient population is warranted to determine the long-term durability and risk of revision of monoblock cup designs.
During the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups.
We determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision.
Between 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision.
The relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91).
We found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.
Level of Evidence
Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Background and purpose
Hydroxyapatite (HA) is widely used as a coating for uncemented total hip arthroplasty components. This has been suggested to improve implant ingrowth and long-term stability. However, the evidence behind the use of HA coating on femoral stems is ambiguous. We investigated survival of an uncemented, tapered titanium femoral stem that was available either with or without HA coating (Bi-Metric).
Patients and methods
The stem had been used in 4,772 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in 4,169 patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2009. 59% of the stems investigated were coated with HA and 41% were uncoated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and a Cox regression model with adjustment for age, sex, primary diagnosis, and the type of cup fixation were used to calculate survival rates and adjusted risk ratios (RRs) of the risk of revision for various reasons.
The 10-year survival rates of the HA-coated version and the uncoated version were about equal when we used revision for any reason as the endpoint: 98% (95% CI: 98–99) and 98% (CI: 97–99), respectively. A Cox regression model adjusting for the covariates mentioned above showed that the presence of HA coating did not have any influence on the risk of stem revision for any reason (RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.6–1.6) or due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.5, CI: 0.2–1.5). There was no effect of HA coating on the risk of stem revision due to infection, dislocation, or fracture.
The uncemented Bi-Metric stem showed excellent 10-year survival. Our findings do not support the use of HA coating on this stem to enhance implant survival.
Although uncemented cup implants frequently are used in young patients, we believe long-term survival rates of cups in these patients are somewhat disappointing, and therefore we have continued to use cemented cups in primary THA, even in young patients. However, in cases of acetabular bone stock defects, we also use bone impaction grafting. We prospectively followed 130 patients with 175 cemented cups; no patients were lost to followup. The mean age of the patients at surgery was 31 years (range, 16–39 years). An acetabular reconstruction with bone impaction grafting was performed in 84 hips (48%). The minimum followup was 2 years (average, 8.1 years; range, 2.0–18.5 years). Twenty-one of the 175 cups (12%) were revised at an average of 8.1 years (range, 2.0–18.5 years). Reasons for revision were infection (one early, seven late), recurrent dislocations (two), traumatic loosening (one), and aseptic loosening (10). The 10-year survival rate of all cemented cups with end point of revision for any cause was 85%. Survival with end point of aseptic loosening of all cups was 92%. Survival with end point of revision for aseptic loosening was 90% for the cups without impaction grafting and 95% for the cups with impaction grafting. We believe cemented acetabular cups in young patients have acceptable midterm survival; however, in the case of acetabular bone defects, we recommend reconstruction with impaction grafting.
Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
We compared clinical results and wear performance in two different generations of a cementless porous-coated cup, analysing the long-term results of 83 uncemented Harris-Galante I cups (32-mm femoral head) and 93 uncemented Harris-Galante II cups (28-mm femoral head). All polyethylene liners were gamma irradiated in air. Polyethylene linear wear was estimated using a software package. The minimum follow-up was 10 years. Nine Harris-Galante I cups and two Harris-Galante II cups were revised due to aseptic loosening or polyethylene problems. The mean femoral head penetration at 6 weeks after surgery was 0.15 ± 0.05 mm for the Harris-Galante I cups and 0.12 ± 0.03 for the Harris-Galante II cups (p < 0.001);but mean wear was 0.13 ± 0.23 mm per year for the Harris-Galante I cups and 0.11 ± 0.10 for the Harris-Galante II cups (p = 0.740). Most of the metallic shells in both groups showed stable fixation. The so-called second-generation cups had lower initial polyethylene wear that resulted in less polyethylene wear at the latest the follow-up, but the overall wear rate was similar in both groups despite the different femoral head sizes and the improved locking mechanism.
Polyethylene wear and osteolysis are not uncommon in THA mid- and long-term. In asymptomatic patients the dilemma faced by the orthopaedic surgeon is whether to revise the cup and risk damage to the supporting columns and even pelvic discontinuity or to perform isolated polyethylene exchange and risk a high rate of postoperative recurrent instability and dislocation that will necessitate further surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients (67 hips) who underwent revision arthroplasty for polywear and osteolysis. Thirty-six hips had isolated polyethylene exchange, while 31 had full acetabular revision. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 2.8 years; range, 2–5 years). Three of 36 hips with a retained cup grafted through the cup holes failed within 5 years due to acetabular loosening. One of 31 hips with full revision underwent re-revision for aseptic cup loosening at 5 months postoperatively. Although we do not recommend prophylactic revision of all cups for polywear and osteolysis, the patient may be warned of the possibility of an approximate 10% failure rate when retaining the acetabular component. We do, however, advocate cup extraction in the following situations: damage to the locking mechanism, erosion of the femoral head through the liner and into the cup damaging the metal, and a malpositioned component that may jeopardize the stability of the revision.
Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Uncemented femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are commonly used today, but few studies have evaluated their survival into the third decade.
We evaluated (1) survivorship using femoral revision for any reason as the end point; (2) survivorship using femoral revision for aseptic loosening as the end point; and (3) patient-related and surgical risk factors for aseptic stem loosening at a minimum 20-year followup with an uncemented tapered titanium stem.
We reviewed the clinical and radiographic results of 354 THAs in 326 patients performed between January 1985 and December 1989 using an uncemented grit-blasted, tapered titanium femoral stem. Mean age at surgery was 57 years (range, 13–81 years). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was used to estimate long-term survival. Minimum followup evaluation was 20 years (mean, 22 years; range, 20–25 years); at that time, 120 patients (127 hips) had died, and four patients (five hips) were lost to followup. Multivariate survival analysis using a Cox regression model was performed.
Survivorship at 22 years with revision of the femoral component for any reason as the end point was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81%–90%). Survivorship for femoral revision for aseptic loosening as the end point was 93% at 22 years (95% CI, 90%–96%). Undersized stems (canal fill index ≤ 80%) and stems in hips with cup revision were at higher risk for aseptic loosening (hazard ratio, 4.2 and 4.3, respectively). There was a high rate of acetabular revision in this series (38%), mostly related to smooth-threaded, cementless sockets.
Uncemented femoral fixation was reliable into the third decade. Age, male sex, and diagnosis were not associated with a higher risk of aseptic loosening.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
This study evaluates acetabular cup position in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with severe acetabular bone defects.
With a definition of safe zone of abduction (30–50°) and anteversion (5–25°), acetabular cup position was measured by a digital image analysis program for 34 patients with Paprosky type III acetabular bone defects.
There were 24 cups (71 %) for abduction and 26 cups (76 %) for anteversion located in the safe zone. Nineteen cups (56 %) were within the safe zone for both abduction and anteversion. There was no dislocation, however one cup out of the safe zone resulted in early cup failure due to aseptic loosening.
The acetabular cup positioning in patients with Paprosky type III defects was 'optimal' in half of the cases. The prevalence of optimal acetabular cup position was similar to those reported in primary THA, suggesting that the presence of a large acetabular bone defect may not be a significant risk factor for suboptimal acetabular cup positioning in the setting of revision THA.
Total hip arthroplasty; Revision; Acetabular bone defect; Paprosky type III; Cup position; Martell technique
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with well designed cementless acetabular implants has shown excellent results. The purpose of this study was to assess our clinical and radiological outcomes using an uncemented cup. We conducted a prospective cohort study including all consecutive primary THAs performed with the Morscher press-fit cup, an uncemented non-modular acetabular component, between March 1996 and December 1998. Patients were evaluated at ten years with clinical and radiological follow-up, patient satisfaction and questionnaire assessment using the Harris hip score (HHS), Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score, the UCLA score, the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) and a visual analog scale. Five hundred sixty-one THAs were performed in 518 patients. At 120 months (± 7.3 months), 303 patients with 335 THAs were still available for follow-up. None of the patients had required cup revision for aseptic loosening. At ten years, the cup survivorship was 98.8% (95% CI 97.4–99.5) with cup revision for any cause as an endpoint. No radiolucencies were seen around the cups, but osteolytic defects involved 21 stems (8.3%). Mean total linear polyethylene wear was 0.9 mm. The Morscher acetabular replacement cup provides excellent results at ten years. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening of the cup, and no osteolytic defects were found around the cup. Patient satisfaction was high and the clinical results were very good.
There are multiple revision implant systems currently available for socket revision in revision total hip arthroplasty. Up until now, not all of these systems have been followed up with regards to their long-term use as a revision implantation.
For the first time, this study presents the hemispherical porous-coated socket Plasmacup SC, produced by Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany, and the clinical and radiological mid-term results of this revision cup implant.
Over a period of ten years the Plasmacup SC press-fit-cup was used as a revision implant in 72 consecutive aseptic cases which were included in this retrospective study. The mean follow-up period was 8 years. Bone graft transplantation was performed in 32% of all cases. In 90%, the cup was fixed with additional screws. The follow-up radiographs were analysed with regards to cup migration, osteointegration and osteolysis in the DeLee zones using a computer aided program taking the teardrop figure as a main point of reference. For clinical evaluation the Harris-Hip-Score and the WOMAC-Score were utilized.
At the follow up examination, the mean Harris-Hip-Score was 83.5 points and the mean WOMAC-Score 34.7 points. 93% of all patients were satisfied with the result of the operation. No aseptic cup loosening could be observed and only one cup had to be removed due to infection. No significant longitudinal or transversal cup migration could be observed.
Aesculap's Plasmacup SC is suitable as a cementless cup revision implant. There is stable cup osteointegration, post press-fit implantation, even in the case of major acetabular bone defects.
Dual mobility (DM) cups of mobile polyethylene were introduced to prevent total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, but no large series with this design to treat recurrent instability have been reported.
Our retrospective investigation ascertained the efficiency of DM cups in correction of recurrent dislocation and assessed any adverse effects.
One hundred eighty THAs with recurrent instability were revised to DM cups in 180 patients (mean age, 67.4 ± 11.7 years; range, 19 to 92 years). Thirty-one patients (17.2%) underwent at least one earlier THA revision, and 15 (10.3%) incurred non-union of the greater trochanter. Of the initial group in 2009, 145 patients had completed evaluations which included assessment of the Harris Hip Score and a radiographic assessment at a mean follow-up of 7.7 ± 2.2 years (range, 4 to 14 years). The rate of survival was calculated considering any reason for revision as failure.
At follow-up, Harris hip score was 83.9 ± 16.1 (range, 21 to 100). Dislocation of the large articulation occurred in seven hips (4.8%), and only two recurred (1.4%) (one requiring additional revision). In addition, two intra-prosthetic dislocations of the small articulation (1.4%) were observed and needed revision surgery. The large number of earlier surgeries and non-union of the greater trochanter were related to recurrent instability. Two cups (1.4%) showed signs of definite loosening; six (4.1%) presented signs of possible loosening. Twenty-nine hips manifested femoral or acetabular osteolysis (20%), but only three were severe. Eight-year survival rate considering revision for any reason was 92.6% (95% CI, 85.5–96.4%).
This series indicates that DM cups are a viable option to treat recurrent THA instability. Their design provides a low risk of recurrent instability without increasing mechanical complications.
hip arthroplasty; instability; dual mobility; revision; bearing; wear; polyethylene
Acetabular protrusio is an uncommon finding in hip arthritis. Several reconstructive approaches have been used; however the best approach remains undefined.
Our purposes in this study were to (1) describe the THA survivorship for protrusio as a function of the acetabular component, (2) evaluate survivorship of the cup as a function of restoration of radiographic hip mechanics and offset, and (3) report the long-term clinical results.
One hundred twenty-seven patients (162 hips) undergoing primary THA with acetabular protrusio were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age of the patients at surgery was 66 ± 13 years, and the mean followup was 10 ± 6 years (range, 2–25 years).The cup fixation was uncemented in 107 (83 with bone graft) and cemented in 55 hips (14 with bone graft). Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were reviewed for restoration of hip mechanics and offset.
The THA survival from aseptic cup revision at 15 years was 89% (95% CI, 75%–96%) for uncemented compared with 85% (95% CI, 68%–94%) for cemented cups. The risk of aseptic cup revision significantly increased by 24% (hazards ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.5) for every 1 mm medial or lateral distance away from the native hip center of rotation to the prosthetic head center. Harris hip scores were improved by mean of 27 ± 20 points (n = 123) with a higher postoperative score for uncemented bone grafted compared with solely cemented cups (81 ± 16 versus 71 ± 20 points).
Restoring hip center of rotation using an uncemented cup with or without bone graft was associated with increased durability in our series. There was a 24% increase in the risk of aseptic cup revision for every 1 mm medial or lateral distance away from the native hip center to the prosthetic head center.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Background and purpose
In a previous study based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the survival of cementless stems was better than that of cemented stems in younger patients. However, the survival of cementless cups was poor due to osteolysis. In the present study, we analyzed population-based survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients under the age of 55 years with primary osteoarthritis in Finland.
Patients and methods
3,668 implants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The previous data included years 1980–2001, whereas the current study includes years 1987–2006. The implants were classified in 3 groups: (1) implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 1); (2) implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem, with or without hydroxyapatite, and a porous-coated press-fit cup with or without hydroxyapatite (cementless group 2); and (3) a cemented stem combined with a cemented all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group). Analyses were performed separately for 2 time periods: those operated 1987–1996 and those operated 1997–2006.
The 15-year survival for any reason of cementless total hip replacement (THR) group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (62%; 95% CI: 57–67) and cementless group 2 (58%; CI: 52–66) operated on during the same time period was worse than that of cemented THRs (71%; CI: 62–80), although the difference was not statistically significant. The revision risk for aseptic loosening of cementless stem group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (0.49; CI: 0.32–0.74) was lower than that for aseptic loosening of cemented stems (p = 0.001).
Excessive wear of the polyethylene liner resulted in numerous revisions of modular cementless cups. The outcomes of total hip arthroplasty appear to have been relatively unsatisfactory for younger patients in Finland.
Background and purpose
Uncemented acetabular components in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are commonly used today, but few studies have evaluated their survival into the second decade in young and active patients. We report on a minimum 10-year follow-up of an uncemented press-fit acetabular component that is still in clinical use.
We examined the clinical and radiographic results of our first 121 consecutive cementless THAs using a cementless, grit-blasted, non-porous, titanium alloy press-fit cup (Allofit; Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN) without additional screw fixation in 116 patients. Mean age at surgery was 51 (21–60) years. Mean time of follow-up evaluation was 11 (10–12) years.
At final follow-up, 8 patients had died (8 hips), and 1 patient (1 hip) was lost to follow-up. 3 hips in 3 patients had undergone acetabular revision, 2 for deep infection and 1 for aseptic acetabular loosening. There were no impending revisions at the most recent follow-up. We did not detect periacetabular osteolysis or loosening on plain radiographs in those hips that were evaluated radiographically (n = 90; 83% of the hips available at a minimum of 10 years). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis using revision of the acetabular component for any reason (including isolated inlay revisions) as endpoint estimated the 11-year survival rate at 98% (95% CI: 92–99).
Uncemented acetabular fixation using the Allofit press-fit cup without additional screws was excellent into early in the second decade in this young and active patient cohort. The rate of complications related to the liner and to osteolysis was low.
The preoperative bone defect and the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip are critical in acetabular revision surgery. Uncemented oblong cups are employed in order to manage these issues. We analyzed the clinical results and rates of revision of two different uncemented oblong cups, the reconstruction of the center of rotation of the hip, as well as the rate of radiological loosening and possible risk factors.
Materials and methods
Forty-five patients (46 hips) underwent acetabular revision surgery using two different uncemented oblong cups. We assessed the clinical results and the survival rate for revision and aseptic loosening. Intraoperative bone loss was classified according to Paprosky, and acetabular reconstruction was assessed according to Ranawat. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years (range 4–11 years).
There were four re-revisions (three due to aseptic loosening); the survival rate for re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 60.1 % at seven years. The mean distance between the center of the femoral head prosthesis and the approximate center of the femoral head improved from 21.5 to 10.2 mm. Thirteen cups showed radiological loosening; the survival rate for radiological loosening at seven years was 40.54 %. A smaller postoperative horizontal distance was correlated with cup loosening.
Although optimal acetabular reconstruction can be achieved by using oblong uncemented cups in revision hip surgery, the clinical and radiological results are not encouraging. Excessive medialization of the cup may increase the rate of loosening.
Revision hip arthroplasty; Cementless cup; Reconstruction; Outcome
Dual-mobility (DM) cups were introduced to minimize the risk of THA dislocation. The overall rate of dislocation of DM cups (including both large and small articulations) is controversial and ranges from 0% to 5% in previous studies.
We therefore recorded (1) the dislocation rate, (2) loosening and osteolysis, and (3) subsequent related revisions with DM cups.
Between 1998 and 2003, 2480 primary THAs with DM cups were undertaken in 2179 patients. The mean age was 69 years (range, 19–94 years). This group underwent specific clinical and radiographic evaluation at a minimum followup of 0.17 years (mean, 7 years; range, 0.17–11 years) to assess dislocation, reoperation, osteolysis, and cup fixation.
There were 22 dislocations (0.88%): 15 dislocations of large articulations (0.6%), with two (0.08%) recurring but only one requiring revision (0.04%), and seven intraprosthetic small articulation dislocations (0.28%), all needing revision surgery. At last followup, mean Harris hip score was 91 (range, 60–100); 2439 cups (98%) showed no signs of loosening; and 141 patients (145 hips) had osteolysis (6%). Osteolysis and cup loosening were more frequent in patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery. The 10-year survivorship considering revision for any reason was 93% (95% CI, 91%–95%).
DM cups had a low dislocation rate in primary THA, with a limited frequency of adverse effects. We recommend DM cups to minimize dislocation in populations at high risk for instability, but they should be avoided in younger, active patients at higher risk for osteolysis.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Background and purpose
Controversies still exist regarding the best surgical procedure in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), we have compared the risk of re-revision after 4 different surgical procedures: 2-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, 1-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, major partial 1-stage with exchange of stem or cup, and minor partial 1-stage with exchange of femoral head and/or acetabular liner.
Between 1987 and 2009, 124,759 primary THAs were reported to the NAR, of which 906 (0.7%) were revised due to infection. Included in this study were the 784 revisions that had been performed by 1 of the 4 different surgical procedures. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks are presented with adjustment for differences among groups regarding gender, type of fixation, type of prosthesis, and age at revision.
2-stage procedures were used in 283 revisions (36%), 1-stage in 192 revisions (25%), major partial in 129 revisions (17%), and minor partial in 180 revisions (23%). 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival for all revisions was 83%; it was 92% for those re-revised by 2-stage exchange procedure, 88% for those re-revised by 1-stage exchange procedure, 66% for those re-revised by major partial exchange procedure, and it was 76% for those re-revised by minor partial exchange. Compared to the 2-stage procedure and with any reason for revision as endpoint (180 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 1.4 times for 1-stage (p = 0.2), 4.1 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 1.5 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.1). With infection as the endpoint (108 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 2.0 times for 1-stage exchange (p = 0.04), 6.0 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 2.3 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.02). Similar results were found when the analyses were restricted to the period 2002–2009.
In the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, the survival after revision of infected primary THA with 2-stage implant exchange was slightly superior to that for 1-stage exchange of the whole prosthesis. This result is noteworthy, since 2-stage procedures are often used with the most severe infections. However, debridement with exchange of head and/or liner but with retention of the fixed implant (minor revision) meant that there was a 76% chance of not being re-revised within 2 years.
Isolated acetabular revisions using standard cups are at risk of dislocation. The introduction of a nonconstrained dual-mobility cup was designed to improve prosthetic stability without increasing loosening rates, but it is unclear whether the risk of dislocation is reduced.
We therefore determined: (1) if the rate of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions is lower with a dual-mobility cup, (2) implant survival, (3) patient function, and (4) radiographic incidence of migration, loosening, and osteolysis.
We prospectively followed 33 selected patients who underwent isolated acetabular revisions with a minimum of 2 years’ followup (mean, 3 years; range, 2–5 years). In 24 patients a stainless steel dual-mobility cup was cemented into an antiprotrusio cage, whereas in nine we used a hyaluronan dual-mobility revision cup with a foramen hook and superior and posterior flanges screw fixations. We determined Harris hip (HHS) and WOMAC scores and examined radiographs for migration, loosening, and osteolysis.
There were no dislocations. Survivorship rates of the femoral and acetabular components were 97% at 5 years; the rerevision rate for any reason was 3%. At last followup, the mean HHS increased from 48 points preoperatively to 86 points. No patients had progressive osteolysis, component migration, or loosening on radiographs.
In this select group of isolated acetabular revisions, our data suggest the use of a dual-mobility cup reduced the risk of dislocation without increasing loosening from 2 to 5 years.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Whilst excellent long-term results with contemporary uncemented stems have been reported for total hip arthroplasty in young patients, the survival rates for the whole reconstruction are often compromised by high failure rates on the acetabular site due to peri-acetabular osteolysis and accelerated wear.
In patients 60 years old or younger, we retrospectively reviewed the results at a minimum of ten years of 89 consecutive uncemented total hip replacements in 88 patients using the press-fit Fitmore acetabular component in combination with the CLS Spotorno stem and a 28-mm Metasul metal-on-metal articulation or a 28-mm alumina ceramic on conventional polyethylene bearing. The mean age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range, 25–60). The mean clinical and radiological follow-up was 12 years (range, 10–15).
Six patients (six hips) died and two patients (two hips) were lost to follow-up. Five hips were revised: one for deep infection, one for peri-prosthetic femoral fracture, and one for aseptic stem loosening. In two hips an isolated revision of the acetabular liner was performed (one for recurrent dislocation and one for unexplained pain). No revision was performed for accelerated wear, osteolysis or aseptic loosening of the acetabular shell. We could not detect peri-acetabular osteolysis visible on plain radiographs in those hips evaluated radiographically. The Kaplan-Meier survival with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94% (95% confidence interval, 86–97) at 12 years.
The survival rates and the radiological outcomes with this implant combination in this young and active patient group are encouraging when compared to the results reported for other uncemented cups in this age group.
Smoking is considered a risk factor for surgical complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and has been linked to a higher rate of aseptic loosening in uncemented acetabular components. Acetabular reconstruction with newer ultraporous metals in both complex primary and revision THA has increased survivorship but it is unclear whether smoking affects survival of these implants.
We reviewed our early experience with THA using ultraporous acetabular components to assess the incidence and etiology of early failure and examine if any preoperative variables, including smoking, related to failure.
We used ultraporous acetabular components in 498 patients (534 hips), beginning with one case each in 1999 and 2004, 17 in 2005, and the majority from 2006 through March 2010. There were 159 complex primary and 375 revision cases. Of these patients, 17% were smokers (averaging 35 pack-years), 31% previous smokers (averaging 29 pack-years), 41% nonsmokers, and 1% unknown. Failure modes possibly related to smoking were infection, aseptic loosening, or periacetabular fracture and unrelated were dislocation and implant breakage. Minimum followup was 1 month (average, 32 months; range, 1–78 months).
There were 34 cup failures (6%): 17 infections, 14 aseptic loosening, and one each liner breakage, dislocation, and periacetabular fracture. The failure rate (uncontrolled for potentially confounding variables) was 10% in both current (9 of 89) and prior smokers (17 of 167) and 3% in nonsmokers 8 of 271).
With ultraporous metal technology in complex primary and revision THA, smoking, both past and current, may be a risk factor for early failure.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
We performed a retrospective study to evaluate the results of acetabular circumferential medial wall osteotomy, a procedure designed to provide secure fixation of a cementless hemispherical acetabular cup for the sequelae of septic arthritis of the hip.
We assessed 38 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with circumferential acetabular medial wall osteotomies performed on patients with sequelae of septic arthritis of the hip between 1993 and 2000, who were followed up for ≥ 3 years. The average follow-up period was 8.3 years (range, 3 to 12 years). The indication for this technique was poor acetabular cup coverage of ≤ 70% on preoperative templating. In all cases, cementless hemispherical acetabular cups were fixed to the true acetabulum. Additional procedures included soft tissue release in 16 hips and femoral derotational and shortening osteotomies in 12 hips. We evaluated both clinical and radiological results.
The Harris hip scores improved from 57 points preoperatively to 91 points postoperatively. Radiological analysis revealed no aseptic loosening or radiolucent lines around the acetabular cup. Stable bony fixation of the acetabular cup in the true acetabulum was seen in all cases. Acetabular osteolysis was demonstrated in 12 hips. Revision surgery was performed in 6 hips, but there were no complications related to acetabular circumferential medial wall osteotomy.
Circumferential acetabular medial wall osteotomy can provide appropriate positioning and sufficient coverage of the acetabular cup and thus preserve the medial wall thickness in cementless THA without the need for additional bone grafting for the sequelae of septic arthritis of the hip.
Sequelae of septic arthritis of the hip; Cementless THA; Circumferential medial wall osteotomy
Background and purpose Few studies have compared the long-term survival of cemented primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs), and several prostheses have been used without adequate knowledge of their endurance. We studied long-term outcome based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
Patients and methods The 10 most used prosthesis brands in 62,305 primary Palacos or Simplex cemented THAs reported to the Register from 1987 through 2007 were included. Survival analyses with revision as endpoint (for any cause or for aseptic loosening) were performed using Kaplan-Meier and multiple Cox regression with time-dependent covariates. Revision rate ratios (RRs) were estimated for the follow-up intervals: 0–5, 6–10, and > 10 years.
Results 5 prosthesis brands (cup/stem combinations) (Charnley, Exeter, Titan, Spectron/ITH, Link IP/Lubinus SP; n = 24,728) were investigated with 0–20 year follow-up (inserted 1987–1997). After 18 years, 11% (95% CI: 10.6–12.1) were revised for any cause and 8.4% (7.7–9.1) for aseptic loosening. Beyond 10 years of follow-up, the Charnley cup had a lower revision rate due to aseptic loosening than Exeter (RR = 1.8) and Spectron (RR = 2.4) cups. For stems, beyond 10 years we did not find statistically significant differences comparing Charnley with Titan, ITH, and SP stems, but the Exeter stem had better results (RR = 0.5). 10 prosthesis brands (9 cups in combination with 6 stems; n = 37,577) were investigated with 0–10 years of follow-up (inserted from 1998 through 2007). The Charnley cup had a lower revision rate due to aseptic loosening than all cups except the IP. Beyond 5 years follow-up, the Reflection All-Poly cup had a 14 times higher revision rate. For stems, beyond 5 years the Spectron-EF (RR = 6.1) and Titan (RR = 5.5) stems had higher revision rates due to aseptic loosening than Charnley. The analyses also showed a marked improvement in Charnley results between the periods 1987–1997 and 1998–2007.
Interpretation We observed clinically important differences between cemented prosthesis brands and identified inferior results for previously largely undocumented prostheses, including the commonly used prosthesis combination Reflection All-Poly/Spectron-EF. The results were, however, satisfactory according to international standards.