Isolated acetabular liner exchange with a highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) component is an option to address polyethylene wear and osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of a well-fixed acetabular shell. The liner can be fixed either with the original locking mechanism or by being cemented within the acetabular component. Whether the method used for fixation of the HXLPE liner has any bearing on the long-term outcomes is still unclear. Data were retrieved for all patients who underwent isolated acetabular component liner exchange surgery with a HXLPE component in our institute between August 2000 and January 2015. Patients were classified according to the fixation method used (original locking mechanism (n = 36) or cemented (n = 50)). Survival and revision rates were compared. A total of 86 revisions were performed and the mean duration of follow-up was 13 years.Aims
Methods
The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you
Pelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS). Retrospectively collected data of 38 patients (39 hips) with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom-made triflange acetabular component were analyzed. Minimum follow-up was two years (mean 5.1 years (2 to 11)).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to examine the implant accuracy of custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants offer an option to achieve a reconstruction in cases with severe acetabular bone loss. By analyzing implant deviation in CT and radiograph imaging and correlating early clinical complications, we aimed to optimize the usage of custom-made implants. A consecutive series of 45 (2014 to 2019) PPRs for Paprosky III defects at rTHA were analyzed comparing the preoperative planning CT scans used to manufacture the implants with postoperative CT scans and radiographs. The anteversion (AV), inclination (IC), deviation from the preoperatively planned implant position, and deviation of the centre of rotation (COR) were explored. Early postoperative complications were recorded, and factors for malpositioning were sought. The mean follow-up was 30 months (SD 19; 6 to 74), with four patients lost to follow-up.Aims
Methods
One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.Aims
Methods
Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5).Aims
Methods
Introduction. Cementation of a new liner into an existing well-fixed acetabular component is common during revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for many indications, but most commonly for lack of a modern compatible crosslinked polyethylene liner. However, little is known about the long-term durability of this strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term implant survivorship, risk of complications, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of cementing a new highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liner into a well-fixed acetabular component. Methods. We retrospectively identified 326 revision THAs where a non-constrained HXLPE
We investigated the long-term performance of the Tripolar Trident acetabular component used for recurrent dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty. We assessed: 1) rate of re-dislocation; 2) incidence of complications requiring re-operation; and 3) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain and functional scores. We retrospectively identified 111 patients who had 113 revision tripolar constrained liners between 1994 and 2008. All patients had undergone revision hip arthroplasty before the constrained liner was used: 13 after the first revision, 17 after the second, 38 after the third, and 45 after more than three revisions. A total of 75 hips (73 patients) were treated with Tripolar liners due to recurrent instability with abductor deficiency, In addition, six patients had associated cerebral palsy, four had poliomyelitis, two had multiple sclerosis, two had spina bifida, two had spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia, one had previous reversal of an arthrodesis, and 21 had proximal femoral replacements. The mean age of patients at time of Tripolar insertions was 72 years (53 to 89); there were 69 female patients (two bilateral) and 42 male patients. All patients were followed up for a mean of 15 years (10 to 24). Overall, 55 patients (57 hips) died between April 2011 and February 2018, at a mean of 167 months (122 to 217) following their tripolar liner implantation. We extracted demographics, implant data, rate of dislocations, and incidence of other complications.Aims
Patients and Methods
Highly porous tantalum cups have been used in complex acetabular revisions for nearly 20 years but reports of long term results are limited. This study was designed to report ten year results of revision using a single porous tantalum cup design with special attention to re-operation for any reason, all-cause revision, and revision for aseptic loosening. Retrospective review of all revision THA cases performed from 1999–2006 using a highly porous tantalum acetabular component design with multiple screw holes and a
The interest in osteolysis has waned largely due to the impact of crosslinked polyethylene and the “rarity” of this phenomenon. However, the basic process still remains: particles, motion observed with unstable implants and host specific factors all play a role in bone loss around implants. There are 2 predominant patterns of lysis: Linear versus Expansile. Linear Lysis: is focal bone loss at the interface as seen in the bone cement interface in when using acrylic or at the implant-host interface with porous ingrowth/ongrowth implants. Expansile Lysis: is observed in less contained regions such as the retro- and supra-acetabular regions around the socket. These lesions can also be quite extensive yet may be subtle in appearance. Imaging is essential in identifying the extent and magnitude of osteolysis. Available modalities include plain radiographs although they can be of limited value in that even with oblique views, they often underestimate the degree of bone loss. CT scans are useful but can be limited by artifact. Several centers have explored the role of MRI in assessing lysis. It can be useful for bone loss and provides excellent assessment for soft tissue: abductors, neurovascular structures. Metal artifact reduction sequencing is required to maximise information obtainable. Management of osteolysis: Identification and monitoring periprosthetic osteolysis is a crucial element of patient care. Progressive bone loss leading to loss of fixation and the potential risk for periprosthetic fracture is a real possibility and early recognition and intervention is a priority. The basic Guiding Principles of management are centered around several key elements including the source of osteolysis and degree, the fixation of implant, the location of lysis, the track record of implant system, the presence of patient symptoms (if any), and finally the patient age, activity level, and general health. Specifics of treatment of osteolysis around the acetabulum: With cemented sockets, lysis is typically seen late and frequently at the bone-cement interface. It is often associated with a loose implant and the prime indication for surgery may be pain. Treatment involves implant removal and revision with an uncemented cup and bone grafting or augmentation as needed. With uncemented sockets in the setting of osteolysis, there are several factors to consider. These have been stratified by Rubash, Maloney, and Paprosky. The treatment of these sockets has been summarised as follows: for Type I and Type II with limited lysis, lesional treatment such as debridement and bone grafting with head and polyethylene exchange has been suggested. WATCH for impingement!!!! Graft defects via trap-doors can be performed but make the door big enough to graft. Small doors and grafting through screw holes is at best marginal. In instances of compromised locking mechanisms, consider
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). We have considered constrained liners in some of these cases. However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation situation specifically it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 10–15% have been reported following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient, constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate- term follow-up. Hence in these situations tripolar constrained liners remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well- positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of
The stability of cementless acetabular components is an important
factor for surgical planning in the treatment of patients with pelvic
osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the methods
for determining the stability of the acetabular component from pre-operative
radiographs remain controversial. Our aim was to develop a scoring
system to help in the assessment of the stability of the acetabular
component under these circumstances. The new scoring system is based on the mechanism of failure of
these components and the location of the osteolytic lesion, according
to the DeLee and Charnley classification. Each zone is evaluated
and scored separately. The sum of the individual scores from the
three zones is reported as a total score with a maximum of 10 points.
The study involved 96 revision procedures which were undertaken
for wear or osteolysis in 91 patients between July 2002 and December
2012. Pre-operative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs and Judet
views were reviewed. The stability of the acetabular component was
confirmed intra-operatively.Aims
Patients and Methods
Wear and osteolysis are the major problems limiting the longevity of total hip arthroplasty. There is general agreement that if left untreated osteolysis will eventually lead to loosening of the acetabular component. In many cases polyethylene liner exchange may be preferable to revision of a well-fixed acetabular component. If there is osteolysis present the question is when should the polyethylene liner exchange be performed? The answer to that question has not been definitively defined at the present time. There are few studies available that evaluate the timing of surgical intervention when acetabular osteolysis is present. Indications for surgical intervention include prevention of complete wear of the head through the polyethylene liner (liner thickness < 1.5 mm) and when the osteolysis involves 50% or more of the shell circumference on AP or lateral x-rays. Of course persistent pain with wear or osteolysis is another indication for surgery. Contraindications to cup retention and liner exchange include: 1) Malpositioned component; 2) Non-modular component; 3) Unable to obtain hip stability; 4) Thin polyethylene liner (relative); 5) Severe damage to acetabular shell; and 6) Poor track record of the acetabular component. If one decides to retain the component the following steps are generally involved in operative management. Remove the liner and assess component stability. Assess the locking mechanism for the polyethylene. If the locking mechanism is not intact one can consider
In the revision situation in general and for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including tripolar constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function. Even with the newer options available, dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed (Wera et al). Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations, in the lower demand patient, tripolar constrained liners provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations, tripolar with constraint remains the option we utilise in many cases. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well positioned acetabular shell. We cement a tripolar constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for tripolar constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of
Periacetabular osteolysis is seen in response to particles (polyethylene, ceramic, metal or cement), at times in the presence of an unstable implant, and perhaps made worse by the unique host response to the particle burden. The impact of wear modes: due to either the primary bearing surface (MOP, MOM, COC) or unintended surfaces as seen in impingement, as well as the quality of the bearing counterface all influence the extent of the osteolytic response. The final common pathway appears to be via macrophage stimulation, an upregulation of cytokines leading to a resorption of bone. The patterns of lysis range from linear resorption at the implant interface to more expansile patterns which can be more dramatic in size and may place the implant at jeopardy for loosening. Assessment of implant fixation as well as extent of the lytic process employs the use of plain radiographs (including oblique views), computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The utility of MRI for the quantification of bone loss as well as the newer phenomena of associated soft tissue lesions (pseudotumors, adverse tissue reactions) has turned out to be a valuable tool in helping determine timing and need for revision. The basic principles in determining need for revision surgery revolve around: degree of lysis, integrity of the soft tissues, fixation of the implant, track record of the implant, as well as patient factors including symptoms, age and activity. In cemented sockets, progressive bone loss, pain with or without overt loosening is indication for revision which is generally accomplished using an uncemented hemispherical acetabular component with bone graft and screw augmentation. In the uncemented socket, the decision to revise is based upon a) implant stability, 2) the integrity of the locking mechanism, 3) degree of bone loss. With stable implants, polyethylene exchange and “lesional” treatment is appropriate. Well fixed implants with extensive lysis can be successfully managed with liner exchange and bone grafting as necessary. If the liner locking mechanism is compromised,
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations (i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease). However, in the revision situation in general and in revision for recurrent dislocation specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options, available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, large outer diameter cups, instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, multiple operations for instability. Technique of
Aims. Reconstruction of the acetabulum after failed total hip arthroplasty
(THA) can be a surgical challenge in the presence of severe bone
loss. We report the long-term survival of a porous tantalum revision
acetabular component, its radiological appearance and quality of
life outcomes. Patients and Methods. We reviewed the results of 46 patients who had undergone revision
of a failed acetabular component with a Paprosky II or III bone
defect and reconstruction with a hemispherical, tantalum acetabular
component, supplementary screws and a
In primary total hip replacements there are numerous options available for providing hip stability in difficult situations i.e. Down's syndrome, Parkinson's disease. However, in the revision situation, in general, and in revision for recurrent dislocation situations specifically, it is important to have all options available including dual mobility constrained liners in order to optimise the potential for hip stability as well as function of the arthroplasty. Even with the newer options available dislocation rates of higher than 5% have been reported in the first two years following revision surgery at institutions where high volumes of revision surgery are performed [Della Valle, Sporer, Paprosky unpublished data]. Because of the deficient abductors, other soft tissue laxity and the requirement for large diameter cups, revision cases will always have more potential for dislocation. In these situations in the lower demand patient and where, a complex acetabular reconstruction that requires time for ingrowth before optimal implant bone stability to occur isn't present, dual mobility with constraint has provided excellent success in terms of preventing dislocation and maintaining implant construct fixation to bone at intermediate term follow-up. Hence in these situations dual mobility with constraint remains the option we utilise. We are also confident in using this device in cases with instability or laxity where there is a secure well-positioned acetabular shell. We cement a dual mobility constrained liner in these situations using the technique described below. Present indication for dual mobility constrained liners: low demand patient, abductor muscle deficiency or soft tissue laxity, large outer diameter cups, multiple operations for instability, and instability with well-fixed shells that are adequately positioned. Technique of
The August 2015 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: The well-fixed acetabular revision; Predicting complications in revision arthroplasty; Is infection associated with fixation?; Front or back? An enduring question in hip surgery; Muscle-sparing approaches?; Gabapentin as a post-operative analgesic adjunct; An Indian take on AVN of the hip; Weight loss and arthroplasty
