Repeat Revision Research Articles

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

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

Factors predicting repeat revision and outcome after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: results from the New Zealand Joint Registry.

The number of Revision TKAs performed continues to increase; however there is limited data on risk factors for failure. Additionally, clinical decisions regarding when and how to revise a failed TKA may be as important as the technical aspects of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors predicting repeat revision following aseptic revision TKA. Of 85,769 primary TKAs recorded on the New Zealand National Joint Registry, 1720 patients undergoing subsequent revision for aseptic indications between January 1999 and December 2015 were identified. Re-revision was recorded in 208 patients (12.1%). The analysis included demographic characteristics, surgeon revision case volume, surgical time, surgical ownership of index TKA as independent variables using logistic and linear regression. The primary outcome measure was incidence of subsequent re-revision and Oxford Knee Scores of revised TKAs (OKS). The secondary outcome measure was the influence of component exchange in major revisions on re-revision rate. Younger patients undergoing a revision (HR 0.974) and male gender (HR 0.666) were predictors of re-revision. Elapsed time since index surgery (unstandardized coefficient 0.060) and lower ASA score (UC -2.749) were significant predictors of OKS. Femoral component revision was a predictor of re-revision (HR 1.696) and had the lowest OKS, compared to tibial and all component revision (p = 0.003). Repeat revision TKA is a rare and complex procedure influenced by a number of confounding factors. Using raw registry data, younger and male patients were found to be at a higher risk of re-revision after aseptic revision TKA. A longer time between primary TKA and revision was associated with better clinical outcomes. Isolated femoral component exchange led to worse outcomes both in terms of survivorship and functional scores. III.

Short-Term Follow-Up of Patellar Component Revision in Patients With Isolated Patellar Component Loosening

BackgroundThe etiology of patellar component loosening can be multifactorial, including component malposition, trauma, infection, and poor implant design. These cases may be managed with isolated patellar component revision or simultaneous patellar component with femoral and/or tibial component revision. Isolated patellar revision in the setting of aseptic loosening historically has had limited success with high rates of repeat revision. MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 75 cases diagnosed with patellar component loosening that underwent revision. Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Cases were categorized as either isolated patellar (IP) revision or patellar with femoral and/or tibial component (P + O) revisions. Survivorship and re-revision causes were compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, estimated blood loss, range of motion, and length of stay. ResultsFifty patients underwent IP revision, and 25 patients had P + O revision. Overall survivorship at the 2-year follow-up interval was 94.6%. Survivorship of IP revision undertaken for aseptic loosening was 94%. Survivorship of P + O revision was 96%. Eight percent of patients required reoperation from the P + O revision group, while 12% of patients in the IP revision group underwent a reoperation. Patients undergoing IP revision had better postoperative range of motion, lower surgical times, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased length of stay. ConclusionIP revision demonstrates excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes comparable to P + O revision. When appropriate, IP revision should be considered as a potential treatment option. Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in the Military

Objectives:There is no consensus on the optimal method of stabilization (arthroscopic or open) for revision anterior shoulder stabilization. The purpose of this study was to determine the success of revision arthroscopic stabilization at preventing further recurrence in active duty military patients.Methods:53 revision arthroscopic stabilizations were performed at our institution between 2005-2016 for recurrent anterior shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart index procedure. Shoulders with glenoid bone loss >20% were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of interest was the ability to return to activity/duty without subsequent instability. Patients were followed for time to a subsequent instability event and repeat revision arthroscopic stabilization following return to duty/activity.Results:Patient age at revision surgery averaged 22.9 ± 4.3 years. Mean follow up was 6.1 years (range 0.4-12.9). 34 out of 53 patients (64%) returned to duty without recurrent instability following revision arthroscopic anterior stabilization. 19 patients (36%) experienced recurrent instability following return to duty after revision arthroscopic stabilization. Glenoid bone loss averaged 7.8% ± 8.0% in the successful group and 6.5 % ± 6.5% in the failure group (p=0.573). Durability of the index surgery was significantly longer in the successful group (38.1 ± 31.3 months vs. 20.5 ± 17.8 months, p=.029). There was no difference between groups in patient age or number of anchors used in the index or revision stabilization procedures.Conclusion:Revision arthroscopic stabilization of failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair has a failure rate of 36% in a young active duty military population, which is substantially higher than primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in this population and higher than revision arthroscopic Bankart repair in other patient populations. The similar amounts of bone loss between groups indicates that bone loss is not the primary determinant of failure in revision arthroscopic stabilization.

Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to distal femoral replacement (DFR) for treatment of displaced periprosthetic distal femur fractures. MethodsWe identified 72 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up following a displaced periprosthetic distal femur fracture: 50 were treated with ORIF and 22 with DFR. Outcomes were assessed with multivariate regression analysis and include Knee Society Scores (KSS), infection rates, revision incidence, and mortality. ResultsPatients treated with DFR had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.2 vs 3.8; P = .006). The mean postoperative KSS were similar between groups, but the Knee Society Functional Scores were higher in the ORIF group (P = .01). Six ORIF patients (12%) and 3 DFR patients (14%) underwent a revision surgery (P = .1). In the ORIF group, 3 revisions were associated with periprosthetic infection, and 3 revisions occurred for aseptic nonunion. In the DFR group, 1 infection was treated with irrigation and debridement, and 2 cases of patellar maltracking resulted in 1 liner exchange with soft tissue release and 1 femoral revision for malrotation. More patients in the ORIF group required repeat revisions, with twice as many total revisions (P < .001). Six ORIF patients and 7 DFR patients died within 2 years (P = .26). ConclusionThe Knee Society Functional Score favored ORIF, but the total incidence of revision was higher in the ORIF cohort. Given the high mortality and the substantial risk of reoperation in both groups, additional studies are needed regarding the prevention of and optimal treatment for patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

What is the Likelihood That Tumor Endoprostheses Will Experience a Second Complication After First Revision in Patients With Primary Malignant Bone Tumors And What Are Potential Risk Factors?

Endoprosthetic reconstruction of massive bone defects has become the reconstruction method of choice after limb-sparing resection of primary malignant tumors of the long bones. Given the improved survival rates of patients with extremity bone sarcomas, an increasing number of patients survive but have prosthetic complications over time. Several studies have reported on the outcome of first endoprosthetic complications. However, no comprehensive data, to our knowledge, are available on the likelihood of an additional complication and the associated risk factors, despite the impact of this issue on the affected patients. (1) What are the types and timing of complications and the implant survivorship free from revision after the first complication? (2) Does survivorship free from repeat revision for a second complication differ by anatomic sites? (3) Is the type of first complication associated with the risk or the type of a second complication? (4) Are patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors associated with a higher likelihood of repeat revision? Between 1993 and 2015, 817 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a tumor in the long bones with a single design of a megaprosthetic system. No other prosthetic system was used during the study period. Of those, 75% (616 of 817) had a bone sarcoma. Seventeen patients (3%) had a follow-up of less than 6 months, 4.5% (27 of 599) died with the implant intact before 6 months and 43% (260 of 599 patients) underwent revision. Forty-three percent of patients (260 of 599) experienced a first prosthetic complication during the follow-up period. Ten percent of patients (26 of 260) underwent amputation after the first complication and were excluded from further analysis. Second complications were classified using the classification of Henderson et al. to categorize surgical results. Briefly, this system categorizes complications as wound dehiscence (Type 1); aseptic loosening (Type 2); implant fractures or breakage and periprosthetic fracture (Type 3); infection (Type 4); and tumor progression (Type 5). Implant survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with their respective 95% CIs in multivariate Cox regression models. A second complication occurred in 49% of patients (115 of 234) after a median of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 48) after the surgery for the first complication. The time to complication did not differ between the first (median 16 months; IQR 5 to 57) and second complication (median 17 months; IQR 5 to 48; p = 0.976). The implant survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication was 69% (95% CI 63 to 76) at 2 years and 46% (95% CI 38 to 53) at 5 years. The most common mode of second complication was infection 39% (45 of 115), followed by structural complications with 35% (40 of 115). Total bone and total knee reconstructions had a reduced survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication at 5 years (HR 2.072 [95% CI 1.066 to 3.856]; p = 0.031) compared with single joint replacements. With the numbers we had, we could not show a difference between the survivorship free of revision for a second complication based on the type of the first complication (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.215 to 2.546]; p = 0.535). We did not detect an association between total reconstruction length, patient BMI, and patient age and survivorship free from revision for a second complication. Patients had a higher risk of second complications after postoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.849 [95% CI 1.092 to 3.132]; p = 0.022) but not after preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.174 [95% CI 0.505 to 2.728]; p = 0.709). Patients with diabetes at the time of initial surgery had a reduced survivorship free from revision for a second complication (HR 4.868 [95% CI 1.497 to 15.823]; p = 0.009). Patients who undergo revision to treat a first megaprosthetic complication must be counseled regarding the high risk of future complications. With second complications occurring relatively soon after the first revision, regular orthopaedic follow-up visits are advised. Preoperative rather than postoperative radiotherapy should be performed when possible. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in treating complications considering implant survivorship free of revision for a second complication. Level III, therapeutic study.

What are the Factors Associated with Re-revision After One-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip? A Case-control Study.

Despite increased interest in one-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip, the reported infection-free proportions after the one-stage approach are still comparable to that of two-stage revision. However, we still lack studies that analyze factors associated with any re-revision after one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI. After one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip, what factors were associated with an increased risk of re-revision, and what factors were associated with an increased risk of reinfection? We performed a single-center retrospective case-control analysis. Patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip in our hospital between 2009 and 2017, and who were subsequently re-revised due to any reason, including reinfection, were identified from our electronic medical records. A total of 121 patients who underwent repeat revision for any reason after one-stage exchange for PJI of the hip were identified. The re-revision procedures were performed after a mean of 407 days. The primary reasons for re-revision were repeated hip dislocation in 53 of 121 patients (44%), reinfection including both new and persistent infections in 40 of 121 patients (33%), and aseptic loosening in 16 patients (13%). Forty-three patients underwent another revision procedure after the re-revision procedure (43 of 121; 36%). More than 40 potential patient-, joint- and surgery-related risk factors were investigated and compared with a 1:1 matched control participants by age, sex and year of the one-stage revision. Similar to the re-revision patients, controls were treated for PJI with one-stage revision arthroplasty; however, they did not undergo subsequent revision for any reason by the latest followup examination. The mean followup of the control group was 66 months (range, 17-119 months). The mean length of hospital stay was 26 days in the re-revised group (SD, 11.6 days) compared with 22 days for the controls (SD, 6.6 days). All analyses were performed to identify factors associated with general re-revision and reinfection. The independent factors associated with repeat revision for any reason were persistent wound drainage for at least 1 week (odds ratio [OR], 7.4; 95% CI, 2.6-20.6; p < 0.001), isolation of enterococci (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7; p = 0.010), and prior surgery due to infection before the one-stage hip revision (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.0-6.4; p < 0.001). The factors associated with reinfection including both new and persistent infections were prolonged wound drainage (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.2-21.5; p = 0.001) and prior surgery due to infection (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.5; p < 0.001). Prolonged wound drainage after the one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip must be treated rigorously. Patients with a history of a prior surgical procedure due to hip infection should be informed about the risk of further re-revision when deciding for the one-stage exchange. In case of enterococcal isolation, surgeons may consider another treatment approach rather than the one-stage exchange. Furthermore, we recommend the use of dual mobility cups when performing the one-stage revision hip arthroplasty to reduce the risk of dislocation.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for re-dislocation after revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.

The treatment for recurrent dislocation of a total hip arthroplasty is surgical using varied techniques and technologies to reduce the chances of re-dislocation and re-revision. The goal of this study is to compare operative techniques to reduce re-dislocation and re-revision in revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations. A retrospective study of revision hip arthroplasties done due to recurrent dislocation prior to 01 January 2014. Electronic physician and provincial health records were used to collect patients' initial and follow-up data. Treatment failure was defined as either aseptic re-revision or re-dislocation without revision. Time to event was considered as the re-revision date or the date of second dislocation when the latter endpoint was used. Of 379 operations, 88 (23.2%) had aseptic repeat revision or recurrent dislocation. Of these: 66 (75.0%) due to dislocation with re-revision; 10 (11.4%) due to dislocation with no re-revision surgery; 5 (5.7%) due to aseptic loosening of components; 3 (3.4%) due to osteolysis; 3 (3.4%) due to pseudotumour; and 1 (1.1%) due to periprosthetic fracture. The following factors increase risk of failure: the use of augmented-liners (lipped, oblique and high-offset liners; HR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.05-2.69), periprosthetic femur fracture (HR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.39-8.21) and pelvic discontinuity (HR = 3.69, 95% CI, 1.66-8.21). Femur head sizes 36-40 mm are protective (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). In abductor dysfunction the use of focal constrained liners decreases the risk of failure (HR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.018-0.973). Larger head sizes and focal constrained liners (abductors dysfunction) should be used and fully constrained liners and augmented-liners should be avoided in a revision hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocations.

Polyethylene Liner and Femoral Head Exchange in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Factors Associated with Long-Term Success and Failure.

Polyethylene (PE) liner and femoral head exchange is commonly used to treat periprosthetic osteolysis associated with PE wear after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to determine long-term implant survivorship, risk factors for mechanical failure, clinical outcomes, and complications following PE liner and head exchange. We identified 116 hips in 110 patients treated with PE liner and head exchange from 1993 to 2004. There were 64 women (58%) in the series, the mean age at revision surgery was 58 years, and the mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 2 to 23 years). Radiographic review determined the location and size of osteolytic defects before the revision surgery. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors that were predictive of failure. Implant survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86% to 96%) at 5 years, 81% (95% CI = 74% to 90%) at 10 years, and 69% (95% CI = 55% to 84%) at 15 years. Reasons for repeat revision included aseptic acetabular loosening in 5 hips (4%) and subsequent wear of conventional PE with osteolysis in 5 hips (4%). No patient who underwent revision with highly cross-linked PE subsequently had a repeat revision due to wear. The absolute risk of acetabular component loosening was 23% for patients with osteolysis in 3 zones, 40% for those with osteolysis involving more than half the cup circumference, and 21% for those with osteolytic defects of >600 mm. The mean Harris hip score improved from 77 before the PE liner and head exchange to 87 after it (p < 0.001). The most common complication was dislocation, which occurred in 19 hips (16%). PE liner and head exchange provides acceptable long-term implant survivorship with good clinical outcomes. Complications are not uncommon, and steps should be taken to mitigate hip instability. Acetabular revision may be considered when in situ components have a poor track record or are malpositioned, or when preoperative radiographs demonstrate large osteolytic defects threatening cup fixation. Use of highly cross-linked PE at revision was protective against subsequent PE wear and osteolysis, although this did not reach significance. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CORR Insights®: What Is the Risk of Repeat Revision When Patellofemoral Replacement Is Revised to TKA? An Analysis of 482 Cases From a Large National Arthroplasty Registry.

CORR Insights®: What Is the Risk of Repeat Revision When Patellofemoral Replacement Is Revised to TKA? An Analysis of 482 Cases From a Large National Arthroplasty Registry.

Clinical outcomes and return to sport after repeat-revision ACL reconstruction: 2-year minimum follow-up

ObjectivesAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most common procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons to date. As the number of ACL reconstructions continues to increase, revision and multiple revision scenarios will become more frequent. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively analyze functional outcomes, return-to-sports and concomitant procedures in a series of patients who had undergone repeat revision surgery.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of patients operated between 2011 and 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Surgical procedure, type of graft and fixation were recorded. IKDC evaluation, Lysholm score, KOOS score, Tegner scale, return-to-sports and a radiographic evaluation were performed.ResultsSeven patients were included for analysis with an average age at the second revision of 34 years (range 22-49). The contralateral knee was intact in 5 cases while in the remaining 2 an ACLR had been performed. The average follow-up was 35 months (SD 17; median 27 [IQR 24-39 months]).The graft used for ACLR was: 1 ipsilateral BTB autograft and 6 allografts. In three cases, an associated lateral extra-articular procedure was performed. Three (43%) patients had a meniscal tear; two required partial meniscectomy and 1 was sutured. Three (43%) patients had grade III chondral lesion and we performed microfracture.All patients had a side-to-side difference of less than 5 mm in the arthrometric evaluation and none had residual rotational laxity.The median pre and postoperative IKDC score was 60 (IQR 45-68) and 89 (IQR, 65-94) respectively (p 0.021). The median pre and postoperative Lysholm score was 69 (IQR, 55-80) and 91 (IQR, 86-100) respectively (p 0.S007). The median postoperative KOOS score was: Pain 93, Symptoms 94, ADL 100, Sports 90, QOL 56. Three (43%) patients returned to their previous sports activity level at final follow-up. Three switched to a less demanding activity, whereas 1 discontinued contact sports.No significant osteoarthritic changes were observed. The mean posterior tibial slope was 8° (SD 2.7; median 7 [IQR 10-6]).ConclusionRepeat revision ACLR was effective in restoring knee stability and improving functional outcomes in our patients when compared to their preoperative state. However, only 43% returned to their pre-injury level of sports activity.

What Is the Risk of Repeat Revision When Patellofemoral Replacement Is Revised to TKA? An Analysis of 482 Cases From a Large National Arthroplasty Registry.

Patellofemoral replacements (PFRs) have a higher rate of revision than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or TKA. However, there is little information regarding why PFRs are revised, the components used for these revisions, or the outcome of the revision procedure. Some contend that PFR is a bridging procedure that can easily be revised to a TKA with similar results as a primary TKA; however, others dispute this suggestion. (1) In the setting of a large national registry, what were the reasons for revision of PFR to TKA and was the level of TKA constraint used in the revision associated with a subsequent risk of rerevision? (2) Is the risk of revision of the TKA used to revise a PFR greater than the risk of revision after a primary TKA and greater than the risk of rerevision after revision TKA? Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association Joint Replacement Registry through December 31, 2016, for TKA revision procedures after PFR. Because revisions for infection may be staged procedures resulting in further planned operations, for the revision analyses, these were excluded. There were 3251 PFRs, 482 of which were revised to TKA during the 17-year study period. The risk of second revision was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship for PFRs revised to TKAs, and that risk was compared with the risk of first revision after TKA and also with the risk of a second revision after revision TKA. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare second revision rates among the different levels of prosthesis constraint used in the index revision after PFR (specifically, cruciate-retaining versus cruciate-substituting). The main reasons for revising a PFR to TKA were progression of disease (56%), loosening (17%), and pain (12%). With the numbers available for analysis, there was no difference in the risk of a second revision when a PFR was revised to a cruciate-retaining TKA than when it was revised to a cruciate-substituting TKA (HR, 1.24 [0.65-2.36]; p = 0.512). A total of 204 (42%) of the PFR revisions had the patella component revised when the PFR was converted to a TKA. There difference in rates of second revision when the patella component was revised or not revised (HR, 1.01 [0.55-1.85]; p = 0.964). When we eliminated the devices that ceased to be used before 2005 (older devices), we found no change in the overall risk of repeat revision. The risk of a PFR that was revised to a TKA undergoing a second revision was greater than the risk of TKA undergoing a first revision (HR, 2.39 [1.77-3.24]; p < 0.001), but it was less than the risk of a revision TKA undergoing a second revision (HR, 0.60 [0.43-0.81]; p = 0.001). The risk of second revision when a PFR is revised is not altered if cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilized TKA is used for the revision nor if the patella component is revised or not revised. The risk of repeat revision after revision of a PFR to a TKA was much higher than the risk of revision after a primary TKA, and these findings did not change when we analyzed only devices in use since 2005. When PFR is used for the management of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, patients should be counselled not only about the high revision rate of the primary procedure, but also the revision rate after TKA. Further studies regarding the functional outcomes of these procedures may help clarify the value of PFRs and subsequent revisions. Level III, therapeutic study.

CONSTRAINED LINERS AND DUAL MOBILITY SYSTEMS FOR PREVENTION OF INSTABILITY IN REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Purpose. Instability is a challenging complication of revision hip arthroplasty and a frequent cause of repeat revisions. Constrained liners and dual mobility systems have gained major attention among the options of dislocation prophylaxis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision hip arthroplasy with use of constrained liners and dual mobility systems. Materials and Methods. We used DePuy Duraloc (inner diameter 28 mm) and Zimmer Trilogy (inner diameter 32 mm) systems in the constrained liners group (N 78, mean follow-up — 66.2 month, 54-82), Serf Novae and Biomet Avantage systems in the dual mobility group (N 58, mean follow-up — 17.8 month, 10-41). The two groups were comparable in age, sex and different potential dislocation risk factors, however, dual mobility cups were used more frequently in revisions due to unreduced and recurrent dislocations and in patients with the history of instability following total hip arthroplasty. There were also differences in the structure of primary diagnosis. Results. We observed 14 (17.9%) dislocations, 10 (12.8%) of which occurred within 2 years after surgery, and also 3 (3.8%) cases of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component, 4 (5.1%) cases of locking mechanism damage without dislocation and 8 (10.3%) cases of deep infection in the constrained liners group. In the dual mobility group we observed 3 (5.17%) large articulation dislocations, 1 (1.7%) case of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component and 4 (6.9%) cases of deep infection. The difference in dislocation rates in two groups was significant (p0.05). The analysis of the constrained liners group revealed an increased risk of dislocation in cases when a constrained system was implanted into a retained acetabular component compared to cases with acetabular shell revision (p0.01; RR = 7.2, 95% CI: 2.05-25.26), as well as a trend for increased risk of dislocation in cases when DePuy Duraloc liners (inner diameter 28 mm) were used compared to Zimmer Trilogy (inner diameter 32 mm) (p = 0.07; RR = 4.97, 95% CI: 1.03-24.04). Conclusion. Dual mobility systems proved to be more effective than constrained liners in revision hip arthroplasty although being used more frequently as a treatment rather than prophylaxis of instability. Constrained liners bear a higher risk of dislocations when implanted into retained acetabular components and when used with heads of lesser diameter.

Do Cemented Dual-Mobility Cups Confer Stability for Patients at High Risk of Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

AbstractDislocation is among the most commonly reported complications following revision total hip arthroplasty. Dual-mobility bearings may lower the risk of dislocation. The authors report the results of a multicenter study evaluating the use of a dual-mobility acetabular cup design that was cemented into a metal shell as part of complex acetabular reconstructions or in cases where the risk of dislocation was felt to be high, such as isolated bearing exchanges. Eighteen patients were identified for being at high risk of dislocation who underwent cementation of a dual-mobility shell that is specifically made for cementation, into a fully porous metal revision acetabular cup (10 patients) or into a well-fixed cup at the time of revision without removal of the existing acetabular component (eight patients). Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically at a minimum of 2 years for the evidence of dislocation, revision surgery, and implant loosening. At a mean of 36 months (range, 25–56 months), one patient died and one was lost to follow-up. There were no known cases of hip dislocation. There was one repeat revision, for a deep infection treated with irrigation and debridement. The mean preoperative Harris Hip Score of 46 (range, 40–79) improved to a mean of 65 points (range, 41–97) at the most recent evaluation. Acetabular components were retained in 8 out of 18 cases and the dual-mobility shell was cemented into it. Cementation of a dual-mobility cup into a shell at the time of a revision surgery is a safe and reliable construct at minimum of 2 years for patients at high risk of dislocation. There were no complications related to the cementation of the cup into the metal shell. Longer follow-up is required to further assess the durability of this construct.

High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of repeat revision after failure of a constrained liner. MethodsWe reviewed 1212 consecutive revisions and identified 74 (6%) revisions of a failed constrained liner in 46 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The most common reasons for revision of a constrained liner were recurrent instability (64.9%) and infection (25.7%). ResultsAt a mean of 35 months, 42 of the 74 hips (57%) required repeat revision. Kaplan-Meier revision-free survival was 24% at 10 years. Thirty-two of the 74 revisions (43%) had a dislocation event after the index revision. Kaplan-Meier dislocation-free survival was 43% at 10 years. There was a higher failure rate among the 34 patients with abductor deficiency (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.43; P = .032). ConclusionPatients undergoing revision of a failed constrained liner have a high likelihood of recurrent dislocation and repeat revision surgery. Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

Cutibacterium acnes prosthetic joint infection: Diagnosis and treatment.

Cutibacterium acnes is a commensal skin bacterium, regularly implicated in prosthetic joint infection, particularly of the shoulder. Diagnosis has been improved by progress in bacteriological techniques: longer culture time, liquid medium culture, MALDI-TOF mass spectrography, and universal 16S rRNA PCR, associated by some authors to sonication of ablated implants. C. acnes pathogenicity involves many virulence factors, notably including biofilm formation. C. acnes may lead to infection that is clinically evident or, frequently, relatively asymptomatic. C. acnes is an anaerobic Gram-positive bacterium, susceptible to many antibiotics that are regularly used in bone and joint infection: beta-lactams, quinolone, rifampicin and clindamycin. It shows increasing resistance to clindamycin and natural resistance to metronidazole. Treatment is medical and surgical, associating synovectomy or complete 1- or 2-step revision depending on time to treatment, and antibiotic therapy. Antibiotic therapy is typically for three months with an initial 2-6 weeks' intravenous phase. Prognosis is generally favorable with well-conducted treatment. Late discovery of positive samples after apparently aseptic implant change is an at-risk situation, usually managed by antibiotic therapy, but with late initiation and hence increased risk of failure. Adverse secondary progression requires repeat revision under good conditions.

CORR Insights®: What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

CORR Insights®: What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Meniscal Repair Outcomes in Revision ACL Reconstructions

Objectives:Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in the isolated and ACL reconstructed patient. The results of meniscus repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have never been documented to any significant extent. The MARS group offers with its large cohort of revision ACL reconstructions the opportunity to explore this issue.Methods:The MARS Group was assembled with the aim of determining what impacts outcome in an ACL revision setting, and to identify potentially modifiable factors that could improve these outcomes. This collaboration consists of a group of 83 sports medicine fellowship trained surgeons across 52 IRB approved sites. Surgeons are a near equal mix of academic and private practitioners. Surgeons document surgical technique and intraarticular findings including meniscal and chondral damage and their treatment.All revision ACL reconstruction with meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by both phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since their initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathologic condition and treatment.Results:1215 patients were enrolled. 235 repairs were performed in 218 patients (19.5% of the cohort): 170 were medial, 65 lateral and 17 medial and lateral. 178 (76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. 17 repairs failed by 2 year follow up: 15 medial (8.8%; 13 all inside, 2 outside in) and 2 lateral (3.1%; both all inside). 4 of the medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision reconstruction.Conclusion:Meniscus repair in the revision setting is a successful treatment choice when appropriate. Failure rates for medial and lateral tears were both less than 10% and consistent with primary ACL reconstruction meniscus repair success rates. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a statistically significant higher rate than lateral tears.

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Modular fluted tapered stems have become the most commonly employed category of femoral component in revision hip arthroplasty in North America as a result of favorable early results and simplicity of use. Despite wide adoption, the majority of published data are limited to relatively small series with modest follow-up. The goal of the current study was to determine the success rate and factors associated with success, failure, and complications of the use of modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in a large patient cohort. We identified 519 aseptic femoral revisions during which a modular fluted tapered stem was utilized. Clinical outcomes, Kaplan-Meier survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and complications were assessed. The mean age at revision arthroplasty was 70 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m, and the mean duration of follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 2 to 14 years). The mean Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 51 points preoperatively to 76 points at 2 years (p < 0.001). This improvement was maintained at the last follow-up evaluation (mean HHS = 75 points). At the time of the most recent follow-up, 16 femoral revisions had been performed: 6 because of aseptic loosening, 4 because of infection, 3 because of instability, 2 because of periprosthetic fracture, and 1 because of stem fracture. The 10-year survivorship was 96% with revision for any reason as the end point and 90% with any reoperation as the end point. Of the patients who were alive and had not undergone revision at the time of final follow-up, 12 had stem subsidence but all but 1 of these stems had stabilized after subsiding. Postoperative complications were noted in 12% of the cases. Repeat revision due to femoral component loosening was not correlated with the preoperative bone-loss category or patient demographic factors. In this large series, femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem provided a high rate of osseointegration and sustained improvement in clinical scores at the time of the last follow-up. There was also a high rate of successful implant fixation across all categories of preoperative bone loss and an acceptable rate of complications. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Minimum Five-Year Outcomes with Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cup and Augment Construct in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The use of a trabecular metal revision shell with metal augmentation to fill segmental or irregular defects during complex revision hip arthroplasty has been shown to provide good short-term results in prior published series. Longer-term results of the several cup-augment constructs used clinically are not known. The objective of this study was to report, with minimum 5-year radiographic and clinical follow-up, the outcome of these various constructs in revision total hip arthroplasty. Eighty-four patients (85 hips) underwent revision total hip arthroplasty with use of porous tantalum augments between 2000 and 2007 at a single institution and were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-seven of the patients (58 hips) had clinical and radiographic follow-up at a minimum of 5 years. At the time of revision, the majority of the hips had acetabular defects classified as Paprosky Type 3A (28 of 58, 48%) or Type 3B (22 of 58, 38%). Eleven (19%) of the hips also had preoperative pelvic discontinuity. All hips were assessed clinically at a minimum of 5 years with use of the Mayo hip score. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed for implant stability, the presence and location of radiolucent lines and healing of the discontinuity if present. In 2 (3%) of the 58 hips, the constructs failed because of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component and re-revision was indicated. Six (10%) of the 58 hips demonstrated a radiolucent line between the trabecular metal shell and bone in DeLee and Charnley zone 3. In 1 hip that underwent re-revision and in 5 of the 6 hips with a zone-3 radiolucency, a pelvic discontinuity was present at the time of the index revision. The mean preoperative Mayo hip score was 35.7, which improved to 61.9 at 3 months and was 61.7 at the minimum 5-year follow-up. With failure defined as aseptic loosening requiring repeat revision surgery, this cohort demonstrated 97% survivorship and maintained satisfactory hip function at the minimum 5 years after the index revision surgery. Six of the 11 hips with preoperative pelvic discontinuity either failed or developed a radiolucency in zone 3 and are considered at risk for future revision. Pelvic discontinuity should prompt consideration of the addition of adjunctive fixation or the use of alternative techniques. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.