Rate Of Revision For Dislocation Research Articles

The True Dislocation Incidence following Elective Total Hip Replacement in Sweden: How Does It Relate to the Revision Rate?

(1) Background: The true dislocation incidence following THA is difficult to ascertain in population-based cohorts. In this study, we explored the cumulative dislocation incidence (CDI), the relationship between the incidence of dislocation and revision surgery, patient- and surgery-related factors in patients dislocating once or multiple times, and differences between patients being revised for dislocation or not. (2) Methods: We designed an observational longitudinal cohort study linking registers. All patients with a full dataset who underwent an elective unilateral THA between 1999 and 2014 were included. The CDI and the time from the index THA to the first dislocation or to revision were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, giving cumulative dislocation and revision incidences at different time points. (3) Results: 136,810 patients undergoing elective unilateral THA were available for the analysis. The 30-day CDI was estimated at 0.9% (0.9-1.0). The revision rate for dislocation throughout the study period remained much lower. A total of 51.2% (CI 49.6-52.8) suffered a further dislocation within 1 year. Only 10.9% of the patients with a dislocation within the first year postoperatively underwent a revision for dislocation. (4) Discussion: The CDI after elective THA was expectedly considerably higher than the revision incidence. Further studies investigating differences between single and multiple dislocators and the criteria by which patients are offered revision surgery following dislocation are urgently needed.

Is the Revision Rate for Femoral Neck Fracture Lower for Total Hip Arthroplasty Than for Hemiarthroplasty?: A Comparison of Registry Data for Contemporary Surgical Options.

When arthroplasty is indicated for a femoral neck fracture (FNF), it is unclear whether total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is best. This study compares data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using contemporary surgical options. Patients from 60 to 85 years old who were treated with arthroplasty for FNF, between September 1999 and December 2019, were included if the femoral stems were cemented. Only THAs with femoral heads of ≥36 mm or dual-mobility articulations were included. Patients who had monoblock HA were excluded. Rates of revision for all aseptic failures and dislocation were compared. Competing risks of revision and death were considered using the cumulative incidence function. Subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for revision or death from a Fine-Gray regression model were used to compare THA and HA. Interactions of procedure with age group and sex were considered. Secondary analysis adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was also considered. There were 4,551 THA and 29,714 HA procedures included. The rate of revision for THA was lower for women from 60 to 69 years old (HR = 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.85]) and from 70 to 74 years old (HR = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98]) compared with HA. However, women from 80 to 85 years old (HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]) and men from 75 to 79 years old (HR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.46]) and 80 to 85 years old (HR = 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89 to 3.95]) had an increased rate of revision when THA was undertaken compared with HA. There was no difference in the rate of revision for dislocation between THA and HA for either sex or age categories. When contemporary surgical options for FNF are used, there is a benefit with respect to revision outcomes for THA in women who are <75 years old and a benefit for HA in women who are ≥80 years old and men who are ≥75 years old. There is no difference in dislocation rates. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Use of Computer Navigation in Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated with a Reduced Rate of Revision for Dislocation: A Study of 6,912 Navigated THA Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

The use of computer navigation has been shown to produce more accurate cup positioning when compared with non-navigated total hip arthroplasty (THA), but so far there is only limited evidence to show its effect on clinical outcomes. The present study analyzed data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to assess the impact of computer navigation on the rates of all-cause revision and revision for dislocation following THA. Data for all non-navigated and navigated primary THAs performed for osteoarthritis in Australia from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, were examined to assess the rate of revision. We analyzed the effects of navigation on rate, reason, and type of revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age, sex, and head size, were utilized. Because of known prosthesis-specific differences in outcomes, we performed a further analysis of the 5 acetabular and femoral component combinations most commonly used with navigation. Computer navigation was utilized in 6,912 primary THAs for osteoarthritis, with the use of navigation increasing from 1.9% in 2009 to 4.4% of all primary THAs performed in 2019. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision between navigated and non-navigated THAs looking at the entire group. There was a lower rate of revision for dislocation in the navigation THA cohort. The cumulative percent revision for dislocation at 10 years was 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 0.6%) for navigated compared with 0.8% (95% CI, 0.8% to 0.9%) for non-navigated THAs (HR adjusted for age, sex, and head size, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.74; p = 0.002). In the 5 component combinations most commonly used with navigation, the rate of all-cause revision was significantly lower when these components were navigated compared with non-navigated. The cumulative percent revision at 10 years for these 5 prostheses combined was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 3.4%) for navigated compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 4.0% to 4.5%) for non-navigated THAs (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; p = 0.003). This study showed that the use of computer navigation was associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation following THA. Furthermore, in the component combinations most commonly used with navigation there was also a reduction in the rate of all-cause revision. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acetabular screws do not improve early revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty. An instrumented registry analysis.

Initial stability of uncemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is important for osseointegration and potentially enhanced by screw fixation. We used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data to determine whether screw usage influences uncemented acetabular component survival. Primary THA with uncemented acetabular components performed for osteoarthritis from 1999 to 2018 was included. Survivorship was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative percent revision (CPR). Comparisons used Cox proportional hazards method. An instrumental variable analysis adjusted for surgeon preference for screws as a confounding factor was used. Three hundred thirty thousand one hundred ninety-two THAs were included (31.8% with screws, 68.2% without). Two hundred twenty thousand six hundred seven were included in the instrumental variable analysis. Revision rate of acetabular components (all causes) was higher with screws during the first six years (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.45 (95% CI 1.34, 1.57), p < 0.001) and lower thereafter (HR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.67, 0.98), p = 0.027). Revision rate of acetabular components for loosening was higher with screws over the entire study period (HR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.51, 1.98), p < 0.001). Overall THA revision rate was higher with screws during the first six years (HR = 1.20 (95% CI 1.15, 1.26), p < 0.001) but lower thereafter (HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.98), p = 0.020). Revision rate for dislocation was higher with screws over the entire period (HR = 1.16 (95% CI 1.06, 1.26), p < 0.001). Instrumental variable analysis revealed higher revision rates with acetabular screws in the first six years. (HR = 1.18 (95% CI 1.09-1.29), p < 0.001). Screws did not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening and were not associated with long-term negative consequences.

Early Rate of Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty Related to Surgical Approach: An Analysis of 122,345 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

A number of surgical approaches are available for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there are limited large-volume, multi-surgeon data comparing the rates of early revisions following these approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of revision of primary conventional THA related to surgical approach. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for all patients who had undergone a primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2015 to December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes. Secondary outcome measures were major revision (a revision procedure requiring change of the acetabular and/or femoral component) and revision for specific diagnoses: fracture, component loosening, infection, and dislocation. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, femoral head size, and femoral fixation were assessed as potential confounders. There was a total of 122,345 primary conventional THAs for which the surgical approach was recorded in the registry; 65,791 were posterior, 24,468 were lateral, and 32,086 were anterior. There was no difference in the overall CPR among approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of major revisions. There were differences among the approaches with regard to the types of revision. When adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, femoral head size, and femoral fixation, the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of femoral complications-i.e., revision for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening. There was a lower rate of revision for infection after the anterior approach compared with the posterior approach in the entire period, and compared with the lateral approach in the first 3 months. The posterior approach was associated with a higher rate of revision for dislocation compared with both the anterior and the lateral approach in all time periods. The anterior approach was associated with a lower rate of revision compared with the lateral approach in the first 6 months only. There was no difference in the overall early CPR among the surgical approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of early major revisions and femoral complications (revisions for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening) compared with the posterior and lateral approaches and with a lower rate of dislocation and infection. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — Recurrent dislocation is the commonest cause of early revision of a total hip arthropasty (THA). We examined the effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on revision rate for dislocation, and for other reasons, after total hip arthroplasty (THA).Patients and methods — We analyzed data on 166,231 primary THAs and 3,754 subsequent revision THAs performed between 2007 and 2015, registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Revision rate for dislocation, and for all other causes, were calculated by competing-risk analysis at 6-year follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression ratios (HRs) were used for comparisons.Results — Posterolateral approach was associated with higher dislocation revision risk (HR =1) than straight lateral, anterolateral, and anterior approaches (HR =0.5–0.6). However, the risk of revision for all other reasons (especially stem loosening) was higher with anterior and anterolateral approaches (HR =1.2) and lowest with posterolateral approach (HR =1). For all approaches, 32-mm heads reduced the risk of revision for dislocation compared to 22- to 28-mm heads (HR =1 and 1.6, respectively), while the risk of revision for other causes remained unchanged. 36-mm heads increasingly reduced the risk of revision for dislocation but only with the posterolateral approach (HR =0.6), while the risk of revision for other reasons was unchanged. With the anterior approach, 36-mm heads increased the risk of revision for other reasons (HR =1.5).Interpretation — Compared to the posterolateral approach, direct anterior and anterolateral approaches reduce the risk of revision for dislocation, but at the cost of more stem revisions and other revisions. For all approaches, there is benefit in using 32-mm heads instead of 22- to 28-mm heads. For the posterolateral approach, 36-mm heads can safely further reduce the risk of revision for dislocation.

Contemporary dual-mobility cup regional and private register: methodology and results.

The dual-mobility cup (DMC) was introduced in 1979. Due to lack of referenced publications, this interesting and innovating concept was ignored during close to 20years. However, 180 studies (level III or IV) have now been published. Evidence-based medicine is based on level I studies. Over the past three decades, the role of national registries developed with the intention of surveying orthopaedic implants. In 2012, we developed, registered, and implemented a specific database for contemporary DMC. Data are collected with an electronic case-report form, and this evaluation is limited to a single product line . From May 2012 to December 2016, 2090 cases of Quattro cup implantation have been registered; results of the first 636 primary cases with a minimum follow-up of three years were previously reported (series 1). Of the 1454 remaining cases, dislocation rate only was monitored (series 2) and results are reported here. In series1 comprising 553 degenerative diseases and 83 proximal femoral fractures (PFF), one dislocation (1.2%) occurred in PFF and none in degenerative disease. Survivorship (infection excluded) at three years was 99.8%. In series 2 (1315 degenerative diseases; 139 PFFs), dislocation rate was 0.27% (four cases). In neither series did we observe any intraprosthetic dislocation. Results of this private regional register confirm the high efficiency of DMC to decrease dislocation rate (0.23%). Few outcomes of DMC in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are published in national registries. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register has reported on 287 primary DMC hips of 78,098 THAs. No dislocations were reported. We conclude that DMC decreases dislocation rate, and the national registry of Lithuania also reports a significant decrease in the rate of revision for dislocation in the DMC group. These data-available online-allow us to monitor DMC in real time, although they lack short-term follow-up.

Cementless dual-mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty revision.

Dislocation is a frequent complication in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision. Cup fixation is the second concern. In order to know outcomes at two years, we prospectively followed a continuous series of 78 patients to demonstrate that cementless dual-mobility cup (DMC) used in revision THA is safe as regards dislocation risk and bone fixation. We enrolled 78 consecutive patients (79 cases) in a prospective study. Mean interval between index surgery and revision was 12.9 years. Mean age at revision was 75.5 years. Two types of cementless DMC were used: a standard DMC in 68 cases with low-grade bone defect (Paprosky grade 1 and 2), and a specific design reconstruction DMC in 11 cases with severe bone loss (Paprosky grade 3). At two years of follow-up, 68 patients were reviewed; four were lost to follow-up., and six patients were deceased. We identified three types of situations at risk:standard risk (33 cases), Paprosky grade 1 or 2; medium risk (37 cases), revision for recurrent instability (21), periprosthetic fractures (14) or severe loosening Paprosky grade 3 without femorotomy (2); high risk (nine cases), revision for severe loosening with a femorotomy. One (1.3%) patient dislocated her hip at one month without recurrence. Revision rate for dislocation was 0%; two (2.7%) early mechanical failures occurred. Considering outcomes of this series, cementless DMC can be suggested in THA revision surgery.

Primary total hip arthroplasty revision due to dislocation: Prospective French multicenter study

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) may require surgical revision, and is one of the most frequent causes for revision in national registers. The goals of this study were to determine the characteristics of revision THA for dislocation and identify the typical features of hips revised due to dislocation. A prospective multicenter study (30 centers) was performed in first revision THA performed between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 (multiple revisions were excluded). Two hundred nineteen (10.4%) of all first revisions (2153 cases in 2107 patients) were for dislocation, which was the fifth cause of revision. There were 135 men and 84 women, mean age 65.9 years old (24.3-92.4) at primary THA and 72.9 years old (31.9-98.8) at revision. Revision surgery was performed a mean 7.1 years (± 7.1) after primary THA. The predictive risk factors for dislocation were: a 22.2mm diameter femoral head (risk × 2.4), a posterolateral approach (risk × 1.7), older age (risk × 1.1), an elevated rim liner for primary THA (risk × 6.6). The use of a dual mobility cup did not influence the rate of revision for dislocation (8.8%) compared to the use of a flat rim liner (9.1%). The 10.4% rate of revision of THA for dislocation seems markedly lower than the results in the literature both for frequency and ranking. The use of elevated rim or constrained liners designed to decrease the risk of dislocation does not improve results compared to standard liners. Level IV, prospective prognostic study without a control group.

Do Joint Registries Report True Rates of Hip Dislocation?

Despite advances in primary THA, dislocation remains a common complication. In New Zealand (NZ), dislocations are reported to the National Joint Registry (NJR) only when prosthetic components are revised in the treatment of a dislocation. Closed reductions of dislocated hips are not recorded by the NJR. We compared the true dislocation rate for patients receiving primary THA in the Wellington region with the rate reported by the NZ NJR for the same group of patients. The NZ NJR identified 570 patients undergoing primary THA from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, with addresses in the Wellington region. The mean age was 67.5 years (range, 27-96 years). The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 3 years; range, 2-4 years). Six patients required revision of at least one component for dislocation. There was 100% agreement between the hospital database and the NJR. Using the NJR criteria of revision of any component as an end point, the dislocation rate in the Wellington region after primary THA was 1.05%. The hospital database identified a further eight patients who presented with a dislocation of their primary THA and underwent a closed reduction. These patients were not recorded by the NJR. The true rate of all dislocations, which includes closed reductions, was 2.46%. This article documents the discrepancy between the NZ NJR reported rate of revision for dislocation and the true rate of dislocation in primary THA. We recommend documentation of all dislocations by NJR in their database to allow more accurate comparisons between centers and research outcomes. Level IV, clinical research study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Increased Rate Of Dislocation Of Total Hip Arthroplasty With Cementless Implants: Accuracy Of Acetabular Inclination.

Accurate positioning of acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty is essential for stability. There is some evidence that cementless components are more difficult to position than cemented and have a higher dislocation rate. Our aim was to obtain information about rates of dislocation from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales and to compare accuracy of acetabular component position of cemented and cementless implants. Methods: We made an enquiry of the NJR regarding number of dislocations during 2004-9 and compared rates of dislocation for cemented and cementless implants. We examined 126 post operative radiographs at our institution, assessing the angle of acetabular inclination to determine if there was a difference in the number of implants positioned within <±5° of the target angle. Results: There was a significant difference in rate of revision for dislocation with cementless implants (262/69,822) compared with cemented (266/92,928; c=12.1, p<.001; odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.60). Discussion: The greater accuracy of acetabular component positioning of cemented implants with, perhaps consequent, higher rates of revision due to dislocation should be considered when selecting mode of fixation for THA.

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surface and risk of revision due to dislocation after primary total hip replacement

Dislocation is a common reason for revision following total hip replacement. This study investigated the relationship between the bearing surface and the risk of revision due to dislocation. It was based on 110 239 primary total hip replacements with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry between September 1999 and December 2007. A total of 862 (0.78%) were revised because of dislocation. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces had a lower risk of requiring revision due to dislocation than did metal-on-polyethylene and ceramic-on-polyethylene surfaces, with a follow-up of up to seven years. However, ceramic-on-ceramic implants were more likely to have larger prosthetic heads and to have been implanted in younger patients. The size of the head of the femoral component and age are known to be independent predictors of dislocation. Therefore, the outcomes were stratified by the size of the head and age. There is a significantly higher rate of revision for dislocation in ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces than in metal-on-polyethylene implants when smaller sizes (< or = 28 mm) of the head were used in younger patients (< 65 years) (hazard ratio = 1.53, p = 0.041) and also with larger (> 28 mm) and in older patients (> or = 65 years) (hazard ratio = 1.73, p = 0.016).

Risk Factors for Revision for Early Dislocation in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Risk factors were investigated for revision for dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) between September 1, 1999, and December 31, 2004, as reported by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. For 65 992 primary THAs, the only initial diagnoses with significantly increased relative risk (RR) of revision for dislocation compared to osteoarthritis were fractured neck of femur (RR, 2.03; P < .001), rheumatoid arthritis (RR, 2.01; P < .01), and avascular necrosis (RR, 1.57; P < .05). A total of 58 109 primary THAs for osteoarthritis were investigated for effect of age group, sex, and fixation method. There were 428 (0.7%) revisions for dislocation, 369 (0.8%) with a cementless acetabulum, and 59 (0.6%) with cemented acetabulum (RR, 1.59; P < .01). There is a significantly increasing risk of revision for dislocation as head size decreases ( P < .001). Cementless acetabula, particularly with smaller heads, have a higher rate of revision for dislocation.

The Effect of EPSTR and Minimal Incision Surgery on Dislocation after THA

Dislocation rates after posterior approach THA have decreased with the advent of enhanced posterior soft tissue (EPSTR) repairs that incorporate the external rotators. We examined three posterior approaches (simple posterior repair, EPSTR, and posterior minimal incision surgery using enhanced posterior soft tissue repair) performed by one surgeon in 390 consecutive primary THA operations (390 patients) from 1992-2003. A simple posterior repair of the external rotators done through three drill holes was performed in the first 90 patients. EPSTR incorporating the external rotators and posterior capsule in one continuous sleeve was performed in 180 patients. A 10 cm mini incision with EPSTR was performed in 120 patients. The overall dislocation rate for the series was 2.3% (9 of 390 procedures) with a 1% (4 of 390 procedures) revision rate for dislocation. The simple repair group had a greater dislocation rate (5.5%) compared to the group with EPSTR (1.3%) and the minimal incision with EPSTR group (1.7%). EPSTR decreased dislocation after total hip arthroplasty performed with a posterior approach. A 10 cm mini incision posterior approach with EPSTR maintained the low dislocation rate. Revision rate for dislocation was equivalent between the 3 groups.