Isolated Liner Exchange Research Articles

Isolated Liner Exchange Versus All-Component Revision for Instability After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundInstability is a common cause for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The risks and benefits of polyethylene liner exchange (LE) as compared to full metal component revision continue to be debated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the success rate and complication profiles of revision TKA for instability based on surgical procedure. MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients undergoing revision TKA for instability from 2015 to 2019. Patients with prior revisions were excluded. 42 patients undergoing isolated polyethylene LE without an increase in constraint were compared with 48 patients undergoing full component revision revision (FCR) of both tibial and femoral components. The primary outcome was differences in rerevision for instability. Noninstability reoperations, 90-day readmissions, and lengths-of-stay were also compared. ResultsLEs had a 10.1% higher rerevision for instability rate that approached statistical significance (LE 14.3% versus FCR 4.2%, P = .092). Additionally, FCR had a 4.2% rate of aseptic loosening and a 4.2% rate of periprosthetic-joint-infection, whereas LE had none (P = .181). FCR also had a longer length-of-stay (FCR 3.0 ± 1.3 versus LE: 1.8 ± 0.9 days, P < .001). No differences were found in 90-day readmissions (LE 7.1% versus FCR 4.2%, P = .661). ConclusionAll component revision may have a higher success rate than isolated LE in addressing instability but is associated with higher rates of surgical complications. With appropriate patient selection and risk-benefit discussion, isolated LE may be a reasonable surgical option for TKA instability with a lower complication profile and length-of-stay.

Isolated Liner Exchange and Bone Grafting for the Management of Periacetabular Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Cups with an Intact Locking Mechanism at Short-Term to Medium-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review.

Background: Polyethylene liner exchange and bone grafting is an effective surgical option for the management of periacetabular osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty with well-fixed cups and intact liner locking mechanisms. Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the revision-free survivorship and radiographic lesion progression after polyethylene liner exchange and bone grafting is performed for periacetabular osteolysis. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. We queried Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for articles published from January 1999 to January 2023 using the following keywords: "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed," "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular," "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup," and "uncemented liner" AND "well-fixed." Results: Of 596 articles found, 9 articles were selected for final inclusion (227 cases, mean follow-up time 43.6 months). The overall cup revision rate after liner exchange was 6.6% (15 hips) due to progressive osteolysis (5 hips), aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (5 hips), dislocation (4 hips), and periprosthetic infection (1 hip). There was either radiographic resolution or regression of periacetabular osteolysis in all reported cases that provided measurements (52 hips) except 1 (1.9%) requiring revision. All studies reporting clinical outcomes indicated improved pain and functional scores. Conclusion: This systematic review found that isolated liner exchange with bone grafting for the management of periacetabular osteolysis was associated with a high revision-free survival rate (93.4%) and minimal radiographic progression (1.9%) of osteolytic lesions at short-term to medium-term follow-up. Liner exchange with bone grafting is recommended for the management of large periacetabular osteolytic lesions (> 450 mm2) in well-fixed acetabular cups. We encourage future studies to develop a grading scale for lesions to guide clinical management and risk stratification for patients.

LINER EXCHANGE WITH HIGHLY CROSSLINKED POLYETHYLENE FOR WEAR AND OSTEOLYSIS: DOES FIXATION METHOD MATTER?

Isolated liner exchange with highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) is an option to address polyethylene wear and osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The liner can be fixed with either the original locking mechanism or cemented into the acetabular cup. Whether the method used for fixation of HXLPE liner has any bearing on the outcomes 10 to 15 years after surgery is still unclear.Data for all patients who had undergone isolated liner exchange surgery with HXLPE in our institution between August 2000 and January 2015 were retrieved. Patients were classified according to the locking mechanism used (original locking mechanism or cemented). Survivorship and revision rates were compared among different subgroups. A total of 86 isolated liner exchanges were performed and patients had a mean duration of follow-up of 13 years (range, 5 to 22). 50 patients had the new liner cemented and the other 36 patients used the original locking mechanism.20 patients (23.3%) had complications, with dislocation being the most common (7). 10 of them (12.6%) required re-revision surgery. Overall estimated mean survivorship was 19.2 years. There was no significant difference in the re-revision rate between original locking mechanism (11.1%) and cementation (12.0%) for the fixation of HXLPE (p=0.899). Using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the revision-free survival of HXLPE fixed with original locking mechanism and cementation were 94.1% and 93.2%, respectively, at 10 years, and were 84.7% and 81.3%, respectively, at 20 years (p=0.840).The re-revision rate and the revision-free survival of liner exchange surgery using HXLPE liner were not affected by the fixation technique used. Both cementing a HXLPE liner or using the original locking mechanism were associated with good survivorship at 13 years follow up.

Isolated Liner Exchange in Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Mean of 13 Years of Follow-up: Does Fixation Technique Matter?

BackgroundIsolated liner exchange is an option to address polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The liner can be fixed with either the original locking mechanism or cemented into the acetabular cup. Whether the method used for liner fixation has any bearing on the outcomes in the first and second decade after surgery is still unclear. MethodsData for all patients who had undergone isolated liner exchange surgery in our institution between April 1995 and January 2015 were retrieved. Patients were classified according to the type of polyethylene liner (conventional or highly crosslinked polyethylene) and the locking mechanism used (original locking mechanism or cemented). Survivorship and revision rates were compared among different subgroups. A total of 118 isolated liner exchanges were performed and patients had a mean duration of follow-up of 13 years (range, 5 to 25). ResultsOverall estimated mean survivorship was 17 years. Use of highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) had a lower re-revision rate compared to conventional liners (10.5 versus 46.9%) (P < .001). The re-revision rate of exchanges using HXLPE was not affected by the type of fixation (original locking mechanism 11.1 versus cement 10.0%, P = .868). Conversely, using the original locking mechanism with a conventional liner had a higher re-revision rate compared to cemented conventional liners (58.3 versus 12.5%) (P = .024). ConclusionHXLPE liners should be used in insert exchange surgery whenever possible. Re-revision rate of exchanges using HXLPE was not affected by the fixation technique used. Cementing an insert into an acetabular component is associated with good survivorship at a mean of 13 years follow-up.

Total Hip and Knee Revisions are Really Outpatient Procedures? Implications of the Removal From the Inpatient Only List

BackgroundIn 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) removed over 200 procedures from the Inpatient Only (IPO) list including revision total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasties (TKA). The purpose of this study is to determine if some revision TKA and THA procedures may be appropriate for outpatient status. MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 1026 revision THA and TKA patients at our tertiary academic institution from 2015 to 2020. An outpatient procedure was defined as a length of stay of <2 midnights. We queried our prospectively collected arthroplasty database and compared demographics, comorbidities, surgical indication, type of procedure, discharge disposition, readmissions, and complications between the outpatient and inpatient groups. ResultsThere were only 166 revision patients (16%) who met outpatient criteria. Revision THA outpatients were more likely to have a head and liner exchange (49% vs 25%, P < .001) and an indication of instability (93% vs 44%, P < .001). Revision TKA outpatients were more likely to have an isolated liner exchange (34% vs 14%, P < .001) and have an indication of instability (67% vs 25%, P < .001). Patients undergoing a revision for infection and aseptic loosening were more likely to require an inpatient stay than other revision indication (P < .05). ConclusionThe vast majority of revision TKA and THA patients met CMS inpatient criteria. In addition to a projected decrease in facility reimbursement, concerns exist for the safety of early discharge and access to care for these complex patients if CMS removes all revisions from the Inpatient Only list.

Polyethylene liner cementation into a well-fixed metal acetabular shell for the management of periacetabular osteolysis: a systematic review

Although various papers have reported on the clinical performance of cup retention with cementation of a new liner and bone grafting in the management of well-fixed cups with polyethylene wear and periacetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA), no systematic review of this topic has been published to date. Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from January 1999 to January 2019 using "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed", "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular", "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup", and "cemented liner" AND "well-fixed". Nine articles were selected for review (186 cases, 76.1months mean follow-up). The overall revision rate was 11.3% (21 hips) most commonly due to aseptic loosening (9/186 hips), dislocation (8/186 hips), and liner wear progression (2/186 cases). The reported square size of osteolytic lesions ranged from a mean of 465.84 mm2 to a max of 4,770 mm2. Almost all reported lesions treated with bone grafts resolved or did not progress 97% (72/74). All studies indicated improved pain and functional scores at follow-up. Cementation of a new liner with periacetabular bone grafting provides an alternative option to isolated liner exchange and cup revision for the management of periacetabular osteolysis in well-fixed cups with a disrupted locking mechanism or unavailable exchange liner. Further higher quality studies are required in order to examine if the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene, highly porous-coated cups, hydroxyapatite-coated cups, and small-diameter cups influence the clinical outcome of liner cementation in well-fixed cups with periacetabular osteolysis.

Revision TKA for Instability: Poorer Outcomes after a Previous Aseptic Revision.

Instability is a common indication for early revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The comparative performance of instability rTKA performed after primary TKA and instability rerevision TKA (rrTKA) performed after a previous rTKA performed for any aseptic indication have not been defined. This study was performed to determine the rate of adverse outcomes for patients undergoing aseptic instability TKA revision following a primary TKA or a previous aseptic any-cause rTKA. After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively identified 126 rTKA and 28 rrTKA component revision procedures performed for an exclusive instability diagnosis between January 1, 2011 and April 30, 2018. We excluded patients undergoing isolated liner exchange, single component revision for mid-flexion instability, and patients treated with a constrained hinge. Patient demographic characteristics, medical comorbidities, time to initial revision TKA, and adverse postrevision outcomes (reoperation, component revision, infection, amputation) were assessed using paired Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test with a p-value < 0.05 used to determine significance. Patients in the rrTKA cohort were more commonly female (57.1 vs. 27.8%, p < 0.01), with no other demographic differences. The rrTKA cohort had higher reoperation (39.3 vs. 18.4%, p = 0.02) and component revision rates (25.0 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.03), with a trend towards early reoperation < 2 years after surgery (25.0 vs. 11.1%, p = 0.07). The rrTKA cohort also had higher adverse outcomes related to infection (14.3 vs. 1.6%, p = 0.01), extensor mechanism failure (14.3 vs. 3.2%, p = 0.04) and above-knee amputation (14.3 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.02). Component revision is beneficial for patients with TKA instability; however, higher adverse outcome rates occur after instability rrTKA performed after a previous aseptic any-cause rTKA. Infection prevention and extensor mechanism protection are important to minimize the most common adverse outcomes identified among patients undergoing aseptic rrTKA for instability.

High risk of hip dislocation following polyethylene liner exchange in total hip arthroplasty\u2014is cup revision necessary?

PurposePolyethylene (PE) wear remains a common reason for revision surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA). An established treatment method is isolated liner exchange in a well-fixed acetabular cup and entails a known high risk of hip dislocation after revision surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the rate of hip dislocation after liner exchange.MethodsPatients were included if (1) the PE liner was removable, (2) the acetabular shell was stable with acceptable orientation, (3) no osteolysis around the acetabular cup was found and (4) no dislocation of the THA occurred before revision surgery. We reviewed medical histories and performed radiological measurements using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA) software. EBRA measurements and statistical investigations were performed by two independent investigators.ResultsA total of 82 patients were included in our study. Mean follow-up was six (range: 3.6–9.9) years. In 13 (15.8%) patients THA dislocations occurred at a mean postoperative period of 20.2 (range: 1–44) weeks after revising the PE liner. This is equivalent to an absolute risk increase of 16% after revision surgery, which results in a number needed to harm of 6. This means that every sixth patient with isolated liner exchange can expect to experience dislocation due to wear.ConclusionIn conclusion, isolated exchange of the polyethylene liner because of wear showed a high risk of dislocation and further cup revision. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear should be lowered.Trial Registration number and date of registrationNumber: 20140710-1012 and Date: 2016-03-09.

Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Flat and Elevated-Rim Polyethylene Acetabular Liners.

BackgroudNo study has compared flat and elevated-rim polyethylene liners in terms of stress distribution on the bearing surface. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in stress distribution between flat and elevated-rim polyethylene liners.MethodsA stress analysis was performed by using the 3-dimensional finite element method. The cup was placed at an open angle of 20°, the flat liner and the liner with a 10° elevation was placed at inclination angles of 80°, 70°, and 60°.ResultsCompared with the 60° flat liner, the 80° and 70° flat liners showed higher stress at the liner edge. In the elevated-rim liner, the stress was high at the liner edge along the cup edge. When the von Mises equivalent stress was applied to each element of the liner, the high stress area (volume) was the largest for the 80° flat liner, second largest for the 80° elevated-rim liner, and third largest for the 70° flat liner. The average contact pressure also followed the same order.ConclusionsElevated-rim liners affect the stress distribution by increasing the area of contact. However, since elevated-rim liners exhibit high stress at the cup edge, they are likely to result in new problems including liner failure. These findings could aid surgeons in the selection of liners and determination of revision methods such as isolated liner exchange vs. acetabular cup revision for a well-fixed metal cup with a higher inclination angle in revision total hip arthroplasty.

A retrospective study on the application of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision

To evaluate the effectiveness of cemented polyethylene liner technique in hip revision. Based on inclusion criteria, the clinical data of 26 patients who were undergone hip revision between January 2011 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 14 cases were treated with isolated liner exchange (group A) and 12 cases were treated with cemented polyethylene liner technique (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, the time from primary total hip arthroplasty to revision, and the preoperative Harris score between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The post-operative Harris score and complications were compared between 2 groups, and X-ray findings of the hip joint were recorded to review the position of hip components. All patients were followed up 4.4-6.4 years (mean, 5.4 years). Except for two femoral fractures during the revision (1 in each group), there was no other complication in 2 groups. The hip pain relieved and the lame gait corrected in 2 groups. The hip's function of 2 groups improved gradually after operation, with a better Harris score at 3 months and the best at the last follow-up, compared with preoperative scores ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in Harris score at difference time points after operation between 2 group ( P>0.05). X-ray films showed no dislocation, aseptic loosening, and other interface related complication. For the cases without the chance to do change liner, cemented polyethylene liner technique has a good effectiveness. But restrict patient selection should be considered before hip revision.

Survivorship of Total Hip Joint Replacements Following Isolated Liner Exchange for Wear

BackgroundLiner exchange for articular component wear in total hip joint replacements (THJRs) is a common procedure, often thought to be benign with reliable outcomes. Recent studies, however, suggest high failure rates of liner exchange revisions with significant complications. The primary aim of this study was, therefore, to analyze the survivorship of isolated liner exchange for articular component wear, and secondarily to assess the influence of patient demographics (gender, age, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] ratings) on rerevisions following isolated liner exchange for wear. MethodsA retrospective review of the 15-year New Zealand Joint Registry (1999-2014) was performed, analyzing the outcomes of isolated liner exchange for articular component wear. The survivorship as defined as rerevision with component exchange was determined and 10-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. These revision rates were compared to age, gender, and ASA rating groups using a log-rank test. ResultsThe 10-year survivorship of THJR following liner exchange revision for liner wear was 75.3%. If a rerevision was required, the median time to rerevision was 1.33 years with a rerevision rate of 3.33 per 100 component years (95% confidence interval 2.68-4.08/100 component years). The principle reasons for rerevision were dislocation (48.4%) and acetabular component loosening (20.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in rerevision rates based on gender, age categories, or ASA scores. ConclusionTHJR isolated liner exchange for liner wear is not a benign procedure with a survivorship of 75.3% at 10 years. Surgeons contemplating liner exchange revisions should be cognisant of this risk and should adequately assess component position and stability preoperatively.

Acetabular Osteolysis in Total Hip Replacement - When to Retain the Cup?

Periacetabular osteolysis is a frequent long-term complication of cementless total hip arthroplasty. The decision whether to retain or to revise a cup in the presence of osteolysis remains a challenge. The options are regular clinical and radiological check-ups, isolated liner exchange with and without bone grafting, and complete cup revision. Thorough preoperative diagnostics, including a medical history, examination and imaging, are mandatory for correct decision making. In most patients, computed tomography is useful to assess periacetabular osteolysis. If the cup is well-fixed and positioned in an asymptomatic patient without progressive osteolysis and no implant defect or higher grade polyethylene wear and no signs of infection, continuous clinical and radiological monitoring is preferred. If imaging reveals cup loosening, malposition, osteolysis localised in a weight-bearing area, imminent or present periprosthetic fractures, rapid progressive osteolysis, implant defects or massive inlay wear, surgical treatment may be preferred. Cup revision is usually performed in such patients. If the cup is well-positioned and well-fixed in the X-ray, the procedure has to be discussed with the patient individually. Apart from patient-specific risk factors, the risk of further progression has to be assessed. Isolated liner exchange can be performed if the patient is asymptomatic and the cup proves to be stable intraoperatively. It is still unclear whether filling osteolyses through screw holes or osseous windows is of long-term benefit.

Osteolysis In a Well Fixed Acetabular Cup, Retain or Revise?

Wear and Osteolysis are the commonest cause of aseptic loosening in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA), requiring revision. A less invasive approach could be undertaken in terms of an earlier intervention by isolated the liner change only. Indications and contraindications of each approach are reviewed with some technical tips. Outcome results have shown that isolated liner exchange alone does have a higher risk of instability.

Is isolated insert exchange a valuable choice for polyethylene wear in metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and survival rate after isolated liner exchange for polyethylene (PE) wear in well-fixed metal-backed fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Twenty medial UKAs in 19 patients [mean age 68.7years±8.7 (range 48.5-81.5years)] operated on for a direct PE liner exchange after isolated PE wear between 1996 and 2010 in two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. The mean delay between the index operation and revision was 8.2years±2.6 (range 4.8-12.8years). A four-level satisfaction questionnaire was used, and clinical outcomes were assessed using Knee Society scores (KSS) and range of motion (ROM) evaluation. Radiological evaluation analysed the position of the implants and progression of the disease. Survival rate of the implants was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis with two different end-points. At the last follow-up [mean 6.8years±5.2 (range 1.1-15.9years)], 15 patients (79%) were enthusiastic or satisfied. KSS improved from 73.4 to 86.4 points (p=0.01) and function from 58.9 to 89.2 points (p<0.001). ROM at last FU was 126.5°±10.3°. The survival rate at 12years considering "revision for any reason" as the end-point was 71.3±15.3%, and the survival rate at 12years considering "revision of UKA to TKA" as the end-point was 93.3±6.4%. Isolated liner exchange for PE wear in well-fixed metal-backed fixed-bearing UKA represents a valuable treatment option in selective patients with durable improvement of clinical outcomes without compromising any future revision. Retrospective therapeutic study, Level IV.

Long-Term Performance of Ceramic and Metal Femoral Heads on Conventional Polyethylene in Young and Active Patients

Ceramic femoral heads produce less wear of the opposing polyethylene than do metal femoral heads in wear simulation studies. This is a matched-pair analysis of the wear of ceramic and metal femoral heads on conventional polyethylene in uncemented total hip replacements in young, active patients at a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up. From June 1989 to May 1992, thirty-one matched pairs of alumina ceramic or cobalt-chromium metal femoral heads were identified. Patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, body weight, diagnosis, and activity level. The mean age was 55 ± 9 years (range, twenty-three to sixty-five years) at the time of surgery. All procedures were performed with a posterolateral surgical approach by a single surgeon using press-fit Ranawat-Bernstein femoral stems, Harris-Galante-II acetabular cups, GUR 4150 conventional polyethylene (sterilized in argon), and 28-mm-diameter femoral heads. Wear measurements were performed by two independent observers using the computer-assisted Roman software. The average duration of follow-up was 17 ± 1.7 years (range, fifteen to twenty years). The mean Hospital for Special Surgery hip scores (and standard deviation) in the ceramic and metal groups were 39 ± 4 and 40 ± 3 at the time of final follow-up. The University of California Los Angeles activity score at the time of the final follow-up was 6 ± 2 for both groups. The mean wear rates for the ceramic group and the metal group were 0.086 ± 0.05 mm/yr and 0.137 ± 0.05 mm/yr, respectively (p = 0.0015). There was one reoperation in the ceramic group because of distal femoral osteolysis. There were three failures in the metal group, requiring isolated liner exchange in two hips and revision of the acetabular component in one hip because of wear-induced osteolysis and/or loosening that caused symptoms. Five hips in the ceramic group and six hips in the metal group had radiographic evidence of acetabular or femoral osteolysis, but none were symptomatic. Ceramic femoral heads produced significantly less wear on conventional polyethylene liners at the time of long-term follow-up than did metal heads in this matched-pair analysis of young and active patients with uncemented fixation.

Liner Exchange Into A Well Fixed Acetabular Shell In Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Objective To investigate clinical outcomes and complications of isolated polyethylene liner exchange for revision total hip arthroplasty.Methods From April 1995 to December 2007,80 patients (93 hips) underwent revision total hip arthroplasty during which only polyethylene liner was exchanged with reservation of acetabular cup.There were 41 males and 39 females,aged from 27 to 82 years (average,53.3 years).The duration from the primary THA to the revision surgery ranged from 0.3 to 18.4 years (average,10.9 years).The reasons for liner exchange included:polyethylene wear with osteolysis (78 hips),polyethylene wear without osteolysis (5 hips),polyethylene wear with stem loosening (4 hips),recurrent dislocation (3hips),infection (1 hip),periprosthetic fracture (1 hip) and liner dislodgement (1 hip).Forty-seven liners were fixed into the old cup using cement,and 46 were fixed with the original locking mechanism.Sixty cross-linked polyethylene liners and 33 conventional polyethylene liners were used.Results All patients were followed up for 5 to 15 years (average,7 years).The average Harris hip score improved from preoperative 86.0±16.9 to 89.4±11.6 at final follow-up.Complications included dislocation (10 hips),infection (2 hips),periprosthetic fracture (1 hip) and liner dislodgement (1 hip).Ten hips underwent rerevision due to different reasons:cup exchange (5 hips),conventional polyethylene wear (2 hips),infection (2 hips) and liner dislodgement (1 hip).Using component loosening as the end point,the 10-year survival rate was 100％ in the cement fixation group and 84.8％ in the original locking group.Using rerevision as the end point,the 10-year survival rate was 90.4％ in the cement fixation group and 65.0％ in the original locking group.Conclusion Liner exchange either with cement or original locking mechanism is a safe and successful method.Highly cross-linked polyethylene has a higher wear resistance,which can reduce incidence of osteolysis and improve survival rate of prosthesis. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacemrnt, hip; Reoperation; Polyethylene; Osteolysis

Outcome After Isolated Polyethylene Tibial Insert Exchange in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

We identified 45 knees in 42 patients who had an isolated tibial insert exchange for a failed primary knee arthroplasty with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. The mean age at revision was 68 years, and the mean time to revision was 80 months. Thirty patients completed follow-up questionnaires (Oxford Knee Score, University Of California Activity Index score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Short Form 12) with a mean follow-up of 58 months. Patients' current scores were compared with preoperative scores in 14 knees. Four patients (9%) were subsequently revised. Significant improvement was seen in the Oxford Knee Score, Short Form 12 physical component, and all WOMAC domains, but only 58% of patients had a clinically successful result by global WOMAC score. When patients are selected appropriately, an isolated liner exchange can significantly improve the function of the knee.

Complete acetabular cup revision versus isolated liner exchange for polyethylene wear and osteolysis without loosening in cementless total hip arthroplasty

Revision surgery in patients showing polyethylene wear and acetabular osteolysis without visible acetabular cup loosening involves the difficult decision of whether to revise only the liner or both the cup and the liner. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of complete acetabular revision and isolated liner exchange in patients showing wear and osteolysis without loosening. We evaluated 80 cases of revision surgery for polyethylene wear and osteolysis without cup loosening performed between October 1997 and December 2008. The cup revision group consisted of 45 patients who underwent a complete acetabular cup replacement, and the cup retention group consisted of 35 patients who underwent either an isolated liner exchange or a liner cementing procedure. Comparisons between the two groups were performed. There were differences in femoral stem revision, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. Other variables including complications, osteolysis progression, re-revision rate, clinical score, and satisfaction showed no differences between the two groups. There was one case of early loosening and subsequent re-revision surgery in the cup revision group, as well as one case of wear progression and liner dislodgement leading to complete re-revision of the acetabular component and femoral stem in the cup retention group. We found no differences in acetabular osteolysis progression, fixation failure, or complication between the cup revision and retention groups. Therefore, isolated liner exchange without cup extraction in cases of osteolysis that includes a well-fixed and well-positioned shell could be considered as a viable treatment option.

Revision for Recurrent Instability: What are the Predictors of Failure?

Dislocation is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we evaluated treatment strategies in patients undergoing revision THA for instability. A total of 156 hips in 154 patients underwent revision THA for instability between 2000 and 2007 at our institution. Demographic data and surgical treatment used were analyzed to determine risk factors for failure. Revision treatments included acetabular components in 100 hips, liner exchange in 56 hips, and femoral and acetabular components in 13 hips. Thirty-three (21.2%) had further dislocation. Isolated liner revision ( P = .004), previous revision arthroplasty ( P < .05), and the use of a 28-mm femoral head were associated with higher failure rates. A total of 20.3% (12/59) of constrained liners failed. Isolated liner exchange, history of revision, and use of a 28-mm head were associated with failure in revision THA for instability.

Lysis in the Well-Fixed Shell: “Hold ‘Em” or “Fold ‘Em”

Periacetabular osteolysis is the greatest challenge for longevity of total hip arthroplasty. The generation of wear debris from the bearing surface is inevitably going to cause bone loss around the implants. The challenges for the arthroplasty surgeon in managing this problem are: detection, knowing when to intervene surgically, and choosing the best reconstructive option. From a surgical standpoint, the options for addressing osteolysis are: (1) liner exchange with or without bone grafting of lytic lesions; or (2) complete component revision. The advantages of "holding 'em" include a faster surgery, no bony disruption, a quicker recovery for the patient, and cost. The downside of isolated liner exchange is that there is a high rate of instability, there may be incomplete access to the lytic lesions, and the limitations of the existing component. There have been techniques developed to provide access to the retroacetabular lesions, particularly superolaterally via a trap-door technique. Alternatively, other surgeons have advocated injection of bone graft substitutes in the retroacetabular regions to fill osteolytic defects. However, one may not be able to take advantage of newer bearing materials, larger head sizes, or component reposition to improve stability and wear properties. The advantages of a complete component revision are access to lytic lesions, and the ability to modify component position and take advantage of newer technologies. The disadvantages are cost, a longer recovery, and bony disruption. Each method of addressing acetabular osteolysis has compelling reasons to use it; individual patient factors such as component type, size of lesion, and remaining bone will play a role in selecting the treatment.