Revision Of Femoral Component Research Articles

Survivorship and Risk Factors for Re-Revision after Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged ≤55 Years

BackgroundThere is a relative paucity of literature on the outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in young patients. This study reports the survivorship and risk factors for re-revision in patients aged ≤55 years. MethodsWe identified 354 patients undergoing aseptic nononcologic rTHA at mean follow-up of 5 years after revision, with mean age of 48 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m2, and 64% female. Thirty-five (10%) patients underwent at least 1 previous rTHA. The main indications for rTHA included wear/osteolysis (21%), adverse local tissue reaction (21%), recurrent instability (20%), acetabular loosening (16%), and femoral loosening (7%); and included acetabular component-only rTHA in 149 patients (42%), femoral component-only rTHA in 46 patients (13%), both component rTHA in 44 patients (12%), and head/liner exchanges in patients 115 (33%). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to measure survivorship free from re-revision THA, and multivariate regression was used to identify risk factors for re-revision THA. ResultsSixty-two patients (18%) underwent re-revision THA at the mean time of 2.5 years, most commonly for instability (37%), aseptic loosening (27%), and prosthetic joint infection (15%). The rTHA survivorship from all-cause re-revision and reoperation was 83% and 79% at 5 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing femoral component only (hazard ratio 4.8, P = .014) and head/liner exchange rTHA (hazard ratio 2.5, P = .022) as risk factors for re-revision THA. ConclusionAbout 1 in 5 patients aged ≤55 years undergoing rTHA required re-revision THA at 5 years, most commonly for instability. The highest risk group included patients undergoing head/liner exchanges and isolated femoral component revisions.

A Retrospective Review of Reimbursement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Disparity Between Case Complexity and RVU Compensation

BackgroundRevision total hip arthroplasties (THA) are time-consuming, expensive, and technically challenging. Today’s Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and relative value units (RVU) may in fact disincentivize surgeons to perform revision THAs. Our study reviewed labor and time investments for each component-specific revision THA and analyzed the gap between procedural value billed and final reimbursement. MethodsA retrospective review of 165 primary and revision THAs were validated using operative notes and billing records. We stratified revision THAs by standard CPT coding (with modifiers) as single acetabular component, single femoral component, femoral head plus polyethylene liner (head/liner) exchange, all-components, and spacer placement for infection. Operative time, RVUs, total charges, deductions, and final reimbursement data was collected. Mann-Whitney U tests studied final reimbursement per minute vs per RVU in revision and primary THAs. ResultsOur cohort consisted of 27 primary THAs, 26 acetabular component revisions, 32 head/liner exchanges, 26 femoral component revisions, 27 all-component revisions, and 27 spacer placements. Compared to primary THAs, every revision subgroup except for head/liner exchanges were found to reimburse less per minute and all revision subgroups reimbursed less per RVU (P < .05). ConclusionPhysicians face less reimbursement per minute and per RVU for revision THAs. With cuts in reimbursement set forth by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and insurers, revisions may be financially unfavorable. This ultimately will lead to an impending access to care problem in the future. Our study supports the need to re-examine the RVU allocation amongst revision THAs and evaluate changes to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system.

The influence of calcar collar and surface finish in the cemented femoral component on the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture at a minimum of five years after primary total hip arthroplasty

IntroductionCemented femoral component design including its mechanical behavior in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has influenced the occurrence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF). The main aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the calcar collar and surface finish in the cemented femoral component on the risk of PPFF. Materials and methodsThis retrospective review was undertaken of 1082 primary THAs in 912 patients using cemented femoral components followed for a minimum of five years (mean, 9.4 years; range, 5–24 years). The incidence of PPFF, patients’ demographics and surgical details were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed for four different outcomes: any PPFF, revision of the femoral component for PPFF, aseptic loosening, and for any reason. ResultsThe overall incidence of PPFFs was 1.0% (n = 11): 1.4% (n = 10) in the collarless polished (CLP) group, none in the collared polished (CP) group and 0.6% (n = 1) in the collared non-polished (CNP) group (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the femoral component at 12 years with PPFF as the end point was 97.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9 to 99.8) in the collarless group and 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100) in the collared group (p = 0.048). With revision of the femoral component for aseptic loosening as the end point, survivorship was 100.0% in the CLP and CP groups, and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.9 to 100) in the CNP group (CLP vs CP, p > 0.999; CLP vs CNP, p = 0.001; CP vs CNP, p = 0.112). ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the calcar collar in the cemented femoral component could play an important role to reduce the incidence of PPFF. The surface finish in the cemented femoral components influenced the incidence of femoral component revision for aseptic loosening over 5–12 years. Surgeons should consider not only the geometry and the mechanical function of the femoral components based on different design philosophies, but also potential complications associated with different designs that may require revision arthroplasty.

Fast-track revision hip arthroplasty: a multicenter cohort study on 1,345 elective aseptic major component revision hip arthroplasties.

Background and purposeData on application of fast-track/enhanced recovery protocols in revision hip arthroplasty (R-THA) surgery is scarce. We report length of stay (LOS), risk of LOS > 5 days, and readmission ≤ 90 days after revision hip arthroplasty in centers with a well-established fast-track protocol in both primary and revision procedures.Patients and methodsThis is an observational cohort study from the Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Replacement and the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Consecutive elective aseptic major component revision hip arthroplasties from 6 dedicated fast-track centers from 2010 to 2018 were included.Results1,345 R-THAs were analyzed, including 23% total revisions, 52% acetabular component revisions, and 25% femoral component revisions. Mean age was 70 years (SD 12) and 61% were female. Median LOS was 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2–6), decreasing from median 6 (IQR 3–10) days in 2010 to 2 (IQR 1–4) days in 2018. The 90-day readmission rate was 20%, but showed a fluctuating and increasing trend from 13% in 2010 to 28% in 2018. Risk factors for LOS > 5 days and readmission were use of walking aid, preoperative hemoglobin ≤ 13 g/dL, pharmacological treated psychiatric disorder, age ≥ 80 years, age 70–79 years (only LOS > 5 days), cardiac disease (only LOS > 5 days), pulmonary disease (only readmission), BMI ≥ 35 (only LOS > 5 days) and ≥ 1 previous revision (only LOS > 5 days).InterpretationLOS decreased to median 2 days at the end of the study period, but the 90 days readmission risk remained high (> 20%). Several risk factors for postoperative complications were identified, suggesting that at-risk patients should be treated using an extended fast-track/enhanced recovery protocol focusing on preoperative optimization and postoperative monitoring as well as surgical techniques to reduce hip dislocations.

Outcomes of femoral component revision using uncemented modular titanium stems and the effect of the distal design

Outcomes of femoral component revision using uncemented modular titanium stems and the effect of the distal design

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Revised for Instability: A Detailed Registry Analysis.

Instability after total knee arthroplasty is a common but poorly understood complication. Data from a large national registry was used to study patient and prosthesis characteristics of 2605 total knee arthroplasty revisions for instability. The cumulative percent revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional models used to compare revision rates. The rate of further revision was analyzed with regard to prostheses used in the first revision. Instability increased from 6% of all first revision procedures in 2003 to 13% in 2019. The revision risk was lower for minimally stabilized prostheses, males, and patients aged ≥65 years. Polyethylene insert exchange was used for 55% of revision procedures, using a thicker insert in 93% and a change in insert conformity in 24% of cruciate-retaining knees. The increase in either thickness or conformity had no effect on the rate of further revision. After a revision for instability, 24% had a second revision by 14 years. Recurrent instability accounted for 32% of further revisions. A lower second revision rate was seen after revision of both femoral and tibial components, and where constrained components were used. Revision for instability is increasing. Revising both femoral and tibial components led to a lower rate of second revision compared to a change in insert alone. Recurrent instability was common.

Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for “pain without loosening” versus “aseptic loosening”: a Danish nationwide study

Background and purpose — Patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication “pain without loosening” may have a higher risk of re-revisions than patients revised for other indications. The primary aim of this study was to compare the survival of knee arthroplasties revised for “pain without loosening” compared with “aseptic loosening.” The second was to investigate the prosthesis survival rates in 3 surgical subgroups (total knee arthroplasty (TKA)–TKA; partial revision (revision of tibial or femoral component); unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–TKA) and to compare the prosthesis survival rates for 1997–2009 and 2010–2018. Patients and methods — 4,299 revisions were identified in the period 1997–2018 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 1,111 (26%) were performed due to “pain without loosening” without any other indications, 674 (16%) due to “pain without loosening” combined with other indications, and 2,514 (59%) due to “aseptic loosening”. Survival analysis was performed by a Cox multivariate analysis and Kaplan–Meier curves were presented. Results — The cumulated proportions of re-revision after 2, 5, and 20 years were 12% (95% CI 10–14), 18% (CI 16–20), and 23% (CI 20–25) for “pain without loosening” versus 11% (CI 9.3–12), 16% (CI 14–17), and 19% (CI 18–21) for “aseptic loosening.” There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 indications in repeated analyses for each of the surgical subgroups. The hazard ratio for re-revision comparing “pain without loosening” with “aseptic loosening” was 1.03 (CI 0.87–1.2). The 8-year risk of re-revision for “pain without loosening” was 22% (CI 19–26) versus 22% (CI 20–25) for “aseptic loosening” in the period from 1997–2009, and 18% (CI 15–22) versus 14% (CI 13–16) in the period from 2010–2018. Interpretation — The risk of re-revision was similar for patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication “pain without loosening” compared with “aseptic loosening.” However, we observed a slight improvement of prosthesis survival rates after revisions for both indications from 1997–2009 to 2010–2018. We cannot recommend for or against revision in cases with “pain without loosening” based on these data alone.

Results of revision knee replacement for patients with isolated fixed flexion deformity after primary or revision knee replacement

BackgroundPostoperative fixed flexion deformity is a known complication of knee replacement surgery. We present our results of revision surgery for treatment of isolated fixed flexion deformity after knee replacement. Methods32 patients had revision knee replacement for fixed flexion deformity and were included in this retrospective study. Minimum follow up period was 28 months. ResultsTwo different surgical interventions had been done in these patients.Group 1 (15 patients) had revision of the femoral component, posterior capsular release and tibial component was not revised. Group 2 (18 Patients) had revision of both femoral and tibial components. One patient was included in both groups as she had both interventions.The extent of preoperative flexion deformity in group 1 was from 15 to 40 deg (mean 20.6 deg). Postoperative range of extension was 0 to 20 deg (mean 8.2 deg). In group 2, preoperative flexion deformity was 10 to 25 deg (mean 16.9 deg) and postoperative flexion deformity was 0 to 20 deg (mean 4.2 deg). The difference in improvement between the two groups was not statistically significant on Mann Whitney U test (two tailed p value 0.181) for non normal distribution. Improvement in Oxford knee score following surgery was only 1 point in both groups. ConclusionRevision for isolated fixed flexion deformity leads to improvement in range of extension, but improvement in clinical score is marginal. The choice of preservation or revision of the tibial component did not make a significant difference to the outcome.

Двухэтапное лечение глубокой перипротезной инфекции тазобедренного сустава, осложненной забрюшинным дефектом мочевого пузыря

emphasize the importance of preoperative preparation and well-coordinated work of related specialists using a specific clinical instance. Case report Reported is a successful experience of two-stage treatment of the patient with hip PJI complicated with urinary bladder defect. A 40-year old male patient diagnosed with left-sided deep hip PJI Tsukayama type 3 was treated at department of infection surgery, Rostov Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2 in January 2019. Total hip arthroplasty performed in 2008 was complicated by migration of acetabulum component. A retroperitoneal bladder defect (pressure ulcer) was detected during the first stage of resection arthroplasty and placement of an antibacterial spacer. Urological procedure was performed in a delayed manner due to technical difficulties of implant removal, prolonged and traumatic procedure, and high blood loss. With the patient's condition stabilized cystoscopy and bilateral ultrasound guided percutaneous nephroureterostomy were performed. Prolonged antibacterial aetiotropic treatment was administered. The second stage of surgical treatment included revision hip arthroplasty using a tailored acetabular component and a standard revision femoral component performed at 6 months of debridement. Results Short- and long-term results were good with sustained remission achieved. Patient could walk unassisted using a cane and had a satisfactory ROM in the left hip with HHS scored 76.255. Conclusion Multiple disciplinary teamwork is appropriate for treatment of deep PJI with much coherence, coordinated efforts and expertise from diverse professionals.

What Factors Reduce the Incidence of Early Dislocations in Aseptic Total Hip Revisions with Stem Retention?

AbstractIt is unclear which factors are the most important protectors for early postoperative dislocation in aseptic total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions with stem retention. Therefore, we sought to determine what factors reduce the incidence of dislocations among these patients. Single institution retrospective review was made of 83 consecutive aseptic THA revisions of the head/liner and/or cup performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2020. Periprosthetic infections and femoral component revisions were excluded. Demographics, preoperative diagnosis, revision type, surgical approach, use of dual mobility systems, length of stay, skin-to-skin time, transfusions, complications, and dislocations were assessed. Pearson correlation/logistic regression analyses were used to determine association/independent predictors of dislocation; α was set at 0.05. The overall dislocation rate was 12%. In Pearson correlation, only preoperative diagnosis (instability vs. other, −0.241, p = 0.028) and revision type (only liner vs. cup, −0.304, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with dislocations. In logistic regression, only preoperative diagnosis other than instability (odds ratio [OR] = 0.235, p = 0.038) and cup revision (OR = 0.130, p = 0.014) were found significant protectors against dislocation. Surgical approach and dual mobility systems were not independent predictors of dislocations (p = 0.184 and p = 0.083, respectively). Dislocation rates were significantly different between those cases that had the cup revised (4.0%) and those that did not (24.2%; p = 0.012). Preoperative diagnosis other than instability and cup revision seemed to be protective against early dislocation. Revision of the cup, in particular, seemed to be the most important factor to avoid dislocations while use of dual mobility liners per se did not significantly reduce that risk. The role of isolated liner exchanges in revision THA continues to evolve and should be reserved for appropriately selected patients.

A Contemporary Classification System of Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundCurrent femoral bone loss classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty were created at a time when the predominant reconstructive methods used cylindrical porous-coated cobalt-chrome stems. As these stems have largely been replaced by fluted-tapered titanium stems, the ability of these classification systems to help guide implant selection is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe a novel classification system based on contemporary reconstructive techniques. MethodsWe reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent femoral component revision at our institution from 2007 through 2019. Preoperative images were reviewed, and FBL was rated according to the Paprosky classification and compared to ratings using our institution’s NCS. Rates of reoperation at the time of most recent follow-up were determined and compared. ResultsFour-hundred and forty-two femoral revisions in 330 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 2.7 years were identified. Femoral type according to Paprosky and NCS were Paprosky I (36, 8.1%), II (61, 13.8%), IIIA (180, 40.7%), IIIB (116, 26.2%), and IV (49 11.1%) and NCS 1 (35, 7.9%), 2 (364, 82.4%), 3 (8, 1.8%), 4 (27, 6.1%), and 5 (8, 1.8%). Of the 353 nonstaged rTHAs, there were 42 cases requiring unplanned reoperation (11.9%), including infection (18, 5.1%), instability (10, 2.8%), femoral loosening (5, 1.4%), and various other causes (9, 2.5%). The NCS was more predictive of reoperation than the Paprosky classification (Fisher’s exact test, P = .008 vs P = ns, respectively). ConclusionWe present a novel femoral classification system that can help guide contemporary implant selection.

Midterm Results of Primary Exeter Cemented Stem in a Select Patient Population.

Most North American surgeons predominantly use uncemented stems in primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reserve cemented stems for selected older patients and those with poor bone quality. However, data on this "selective use" strategy for cemented stems in the population at risk for periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe implant survivorship, complications, and radiographic results of a specific collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem (Exeter; Stryker) used selectively in a predominantly elderly population undergoing primary THA. We identified 386 patients who underwent a total of 423 primary THAs with selectively utilized Exeter stems for the treatment of osteoarthritis between 2006 and 2017. In the same time period, 11,010 primary THAs were performed with uncemented stems and 961 with non-Exeter cemented stems. The mean patient age was 77 years, 71% were female, and the mean body mass index was 29 kg/m2. Competing risk analysis accounting for death was utilized to determine cumulative incidences of revision and reoperation. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 12 years). The 10-year cumulative incidence of any femoral component revision in this patient cohort was 4%, with 10 stems revised at the time of the latest follow-up. There were no intraoperative femoral fractures. The indications for revision were postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 6), dislocation (n = 3), and infection (n = 1). There were no revisions for femoral loosening. The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 10%. The 10-year cumulative incidence of Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fracture was 2%. Radiographically, there were no cases of aseptic loosening or osteolysis. There was a significant improvement in median Harris hip score, from 53 preoperatively to 92 at a mean follow-up of 5 years (p < 0.001). The strategy of selectively utilizing a collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem produced a low (4%) cumulative incidence of stem revision at 10 years postoperatively and resulted in no cases of aseptic loosening. The use of the Exeter stem did not eliminate postoperative femoral fractures in this predominantly elderly, female patient population. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Results of surgical treatment in patients with aseptic instability of components of hip joint endoprosthesis

The aim. To study the results of revision endoprosthetics in patients with aseptic instability of the components of the hip joint endoprosthesis. Materials and methods. The basis of this work was the analysis of the revision prosthetics results in 152 patients (158 cases) with aseptic instability of components of hip joint endoprosthesis, who underwent surgery at the State Institution “Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine” between 2008 and 2018. Total instability in the endoprosthesis components was observed in 43 cases (27.2 %), acetabular component instability – in 65 cases (41.1 %), femoral component instability was detected in 50 cases (31.6 %). Endoprosthesis dislocation occurred mostly between 5 and 9 years after the primary surgery. Clinical, radiological and statistical methods were used in the work. Results. Patients with acetabular component instability showed the best results of revision replacement for Paprosky I, II types acetabular defects (t = 9.3, P &lt; 0.05). The vast majority of components became unstabile between 5 and 9 years after the primary replacement. The results of unstable femoral component revisions did not reveal any significant difference between cemented and cementless types of component fixation 10 years after the procedure. Recurrent aseptic instability was observed only in 7 cases, 5 of which (71.4 %) were fixated with cement. In the case of total instability, there was no difference in the revision implantation results between the use of primary components alone and in the combination with revision reconstructive systems. Component stability constituted the great majority (35 cases, which was 81.4 %) of cases after 10 years (t = 7.3, P &lt; 0.05). The recurrent instability of one component was observed in 8 cases, which represented 18.6 % of the total number of revisions. Conclusions. In patients with instability of acetabular and femoral components in the presence of Paprosky I–II bone defects, the results of the revision replacement were better when implanting primary components using cementless type of fixation. The use of revision antiprotrusion acetabular and elongate femoral modular or monoblock systems with cementless type of fixation achieved better results in Paprosky III type acetabular and femoral bone defects. The revision of cemented components showed significantly worse results and implant survival rate compared to cementless fixation technique.

Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Background: Investigations into reimbursement trends for primary and revision arthroplasty procedures have demonstrated a steady decline over the past several years. Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) due to infection (rTHA-I) has been associated with higher resource utilization and complexity, but long-term inflation-adjusted data have yet to be compared between rTHA-I and rTHA due to aseptic complications (rTHA-A). The present study was performed to analyze temporal reimbursement trends regarding rTHA-I procedures compared with those for rTHA-A procedures. Methods: The Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements associated with 1-stage and 2-stage rTHA-I as well as 1-stage rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for rTHA were grouped according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons coding reference guide. Monetary values were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2019 U.S. dollars) and used to calculate the cumulative and average annual percent changes in reimbursement. Results: Following inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-A decreased by a mean [and standard deviation] of 27.26% ± 3.57% (from $2,209.11 in 2002 to $1,603.20 in 2019) for femoral component revision, 27.41% ± 3.57% (from $2,130.55 to $1,542.91) for acetabular component revision, and 27.50% ± 2.56% (from $2,775.53 to $2,007.61) for both-component revision. Similarly, for a 2-stage rTHA-I, the mean reimbursement declined by 18.74% ± 3.87% (from $2,063.36 in 2002 to $1,673.36 in 2019) and 24.45% ± 3.69% (from $2,328.79 to $1,755.45) for the explantation and reimplantation stages, respectively. The total decline in physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-I ($1,020.64 ± $233.72) was significantly greater than that for rTHA-A ($580.72 ± $107.22; p &lt; 0.00001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated a consistent devaluation of both rTHA-I and rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019, with a larger deficit seen for rTHA-I. A continuation of this trend could create substantial disincentives for physicians to perform such procedures and limit access to care at the population level. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Mid-Term Survivorship, Performance, and Predictors of Outcome in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Porous Tantalum Femoral Prosthesis

BackgroundFemoral stem subsidence is a known cause of early implant failure, increasing the risk for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture. Overall survivorship and subsidence in a novel porous tantalum-coated femoral prosthesis have not been well-studied. MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with a porous tantalum-coated femoral prosthesis between January 2008 and January 2015 with minimum 5-year follow-up were included. Clinical and radiographic data were obtained from hospital and office records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of subsidence and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were performed to illustrate primary failure endpoints of (1) all-cause revision and (2) femoral prosthesis revision. ResultsA total of 398 patients with a mean (±standard deviation) age of 61.0 ± 11.5 years, body mass index (BMI) 32.8 ± 8.0 kg/m2, and follow-up of 6.9 (range 5.0-11.2 years) were included. Survivorship at 5 years was 94.9% for all-cause revision and 98.0% for femoral component revision. Average subsidence was 1.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 0-15.5), with 8.1% patients experiencing subsidence >5 mm. Statistically significant mean improvements were observed at latest follow-up in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (40.6 ± 11.5 vs 85.2 ± 10.1, P < .001), Harris Hip Score (38.0 ± 12.0 vs 79.5 ± 12.8, P < .001), and hip flexion (92.8° ± 15.3° vs 103.3° ± 10.3°, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that greater BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, P < .001), non-white/Caucasian race (OR 2.0, P = .036), and female gender (OR 2.4; P = .005) conferred a higher likelihood of subsidence >3 mm. BMI was a statistically significant and independent predictor of subsidence >5 mm (OR 1.25, P < .001) and subsidence >7 mm (OR 1.25, P < .001). ConclusionThe trabecular metal taper femoral prosthesis conferred excellent clinical outcome improvement and survivorship. Increasing BMI was independently associated with an increased risk of subsidence in these patients and caution is recommended in utilizing this implant in obese, morbidly obese, and super morbidly obese populations.

Minimum 10-year follow-up of micro-arc oxidation coating on a cementless grit-blasted tapered-wedge stem of total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre study.

Recently, a femoral stem treated with grit-blasting and micro-arc oxidation (MAO) coating has commercialised but medium-term follow-up studies are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the outcome of a grit-blasted and MAO-coated femoral component designed as a straight, double-wedged, tapered stem with a rectangular cross-section with minimum 10 years follow-up. Between March 2006 and December 2008, 309 primary total hip arthroplasties using a grit-blasted and MAO-coated femoral component were performed by 3 experienced hip surgeons in 3 hospitals. At minimum 10 years after index THA, 299 hips were living, 10 hips were deceased, and 65 hips were lost to follow-up or had a follow-up period <10 years. Finally, 234 hips were enrolled in this study. Mean duration of clinical follow-up was 129.6 months. The mean Harris Hip Score was improved from 46.9 to 88.4 at the final follow-up. 4 hips were revised for 2 aseptic femoral loosening, 1 aseptic acetabular cup loosening and 1 late infection. 3 hips were revised for a periprosthetic femoral fracture requiring a femoral component revision. The average time to revision was 51.6 (range 0-148) months. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis with an end point of revision for any reason demonstrated a survival rate of 97.4% at 10 years. Survival was 98.7% with revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The outcomes of a cementless grit-blasted and MAO-coated tapered-wedge stem of THA were excellent to satisfactory after a follow-up of at least 10 years.

Isolated Liner Revision for Total Knee Arthroplasty Instability: A Road That Should Remain Less Taken.

Isolated polyethylene liner exchange (IPLE) is infrequently selected as a treatment approach for patients with primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prosthetic joint instability. Potential advantages of less immediate surgical morbidity, faster recovery, and lower procedural cost need to be measured against reoperation and re-revision risk. Few published studies have directly compared IPLE with combined tibial and femoral component revision to treat patients with primary TKA instability. After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, we performed a retrospective comparison of 20 patients treated with IPLE and 126 patients treated with tibial and femoral component revisions at a single institution between 2011 and 2018. Patient demographic characteristics, medical comorbidities, time to initial revision TKA, and reoperation (90 days, <2 years, and >2 years) were assessed using paired Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test with a p-value <0.01 used to determine significance. Patients undergoing IPLE were more likely to undergo reoperation (60.0 vs. 17.5%, p = 0.001), component revision surgery (45.0 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.002), and component revision within 2 years (30.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001). Differences in 90-day reoperation (p = 0.14) and revision >2 years (p = 0.19) were not significant. Reoperation for instability (30.0 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001) and infection (20.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.01) were both higher in the IPLE group. IPLE does not provide consistent benefits for patients undergoing TKA revision for instability. Considerations for lower immediate postoperative morbidity and cost need to be carefully measured against long-term consequences of reoperation, delayed component revision, and increased long-term costs of multiple surgical procedures. This is a level III, case-control study.

Conical Primary Cementless Stem in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: 94 Consecutive Implantations at a Mean Follow-Up of 12.7 years

BackgroundRevision of a failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses technical challenges. The use of primary stems for revision can be advantageous for maintaining bone stock and reducing complications: small case series have reported promising results in the short-term to mid-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional results and survivorship of a consecutive series of THA femoral component revisions using a conical primary cementless stem (PCS). MethodsNinety-four stem revisions with a preoperative Paprosky I or II defect were analyzed at an average follow-up of 12.7 ± 5.4 years. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 92.5% of cases. Twenty patients were lost to follow-up. Two subgroups were created: Group 1 (n = 59) underwent isolated stem revision; Group 2 (n = 15) underwent complete THA revision. All were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score, and the visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Residual trochanteric pain and length discrepancies were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included signs of osteolysis, subsidence, loosening, and heterotopic ossification. ResultsPCS survivorship was 100% at 5 years and 95.9% at 10 years. Overall, significant postoperative improvements (P < .01) were observed on the HHS (44.3 vs 86.9), WOMAC (42.8 vs 82.8), and VAS (7.0 vs 3.0). Postoperative scores on all scales were higher for Group 1 (P < .01). Three patients (4.1%) underwent further stem revision. Demarcation lines (1 mm) were found in 12 (16.2%) patients and significant heterotopic ossifications in 22 (29.7%). ConclusionThe use of PCS for stem revision in failed THA with a limited femoral bone defect is a reliable option for both isolated stem revision and concomitant cup revision in well-selected patients.

Exeter Universal cemented femoral component

We present the results, in terms of survival, clinical outcome, and radiological appearance at 20 years, in a cohort of 225 cemented Exeter Universal femoral components (Stryker, Newbury, UK) implanted in 207 patients, at a district general hospital. All patients in this study had a total hip arthroplasty (THA) using an Exeter Universal femoral component with a cemented (n = 215) or cementless (n = 10) acetabular component. Clinical and radiological data were collected prospectively at one year, five years, and every five years thereafter. Patients lost to radiological and clinical follow-up (five) were cross-referenced with National Joint Registry (NJR) data and general practitioner (GP) records to assess whether they had undergone revision for any reason. During this period of study 144 patients (157 hips) died (69.78%). Two patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 61 patients (66 hips) available for review (29.33%). Of the 225 hips, three underwent revision for femoral failure with osteolysis. One underwent femoral component revision for treatment of a periprosthetic fracture. Eight underwent revision of the acetabular component only for loosening. Two hips had both components revised, when components were found to be loose at time of revision for acetabular loosening, though no radiological femoral osteolysis. Two patients underwent revision for infection. Using femoral loosening as an endpoint, the survival of the Exeter Universal femoral component was 98.7% (n = 220, 95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1% to 100%) at 20 to 22 years. Survival with an endpoint of revision for any reason was 92.6% (n = 209, 95% CI 89.4 to 95.55), with a 'worst-case scenario' (considering two patients lost to follow-up to have failed), the overall survival rate was 91.7% (n = 207, 95% CI 87.8 to 95.9) at 20 to 22 years. Our results confirm excellent long-term results for the cemented Exeter Universal femoral componentimplanted outside of the originating centre. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1319-1323.

Modern Revision Femoral Stem Designs Have No Difference in Rates of Subsidence

BackgroundBoth modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems have gained popularity over fully porous-coated cylindrical (FPCC) femoral stem designs, but limited data exist comparing subsidence rates following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in subsidence and clinical outcomes among 3 revision femoral stem designs. MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 335 patients who underwent femoral component revision to a cementless modular TFT (n = 225), monoblock TFT (n = 63), or FPCC (n = 47) stem between 2012 and 2019. We evaluated radiographic subsidence rates, re-revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes between the 3 stems. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of stem type on the risk of subsidence >5 mm. ResultsAt an average follow-up of 39 months (range, 12 to 96 months), there were no differences in mean subsidence rates (3.5 vs 2.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .14), HOOS Jr scores (78 vs 74 vs 64 points, P = .15), or aseptic re-revision rates (4% vs 3% vs 0%, P = .29) between modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC stems. Although modular TFT stems were more often used in patients with extensive femoral bone loss (Paprosky III and IV), there were no differences in subsidence rates >5 mm among the 3 stems (P > .05) in multivariate analysis. ConclusionModular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC femoral stem designs all perform well in revision THA with no difference in clinical outcomes or subsidence rates. Surgeons should select the stem which they feel is the most clinically appropriate.