Risk Of Revision For Dislocation Research Articles

GO BIG OR GO HOME! LOWER RISK OF REVISION WITH BIGGER FEMORAL HEADS IN PRIMARY TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A COMPARATIVE SINGLE-CENTRE STUDY (10,104 HIPS)

AbstractObjectivesTotal hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre.MethodsA retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method.Results10,104 primary THRs were included; median age 68.6 years with 61.5% females. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28 mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32 mm heads and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36 mm heads. Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36mm group (2.7% vs. 1.3% vs. 1.1%). Cox regression analysis showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32mm & 36mm head sizes as compared to 28mm; this was statistically significant for the 32mm group (p = 0.01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32mm (p = 0.03) and 36mm (p = 0.03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes.ConclusionThere was a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes (36mm & 32mm vs. 28mm). Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with a mean of 6.0-year follow-up.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Lower Risk of Revision With 32- and 36-Millimeter Femoral Heads Compared With 28-mm Heads in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Single-Center Study (10,104 Hips)

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of different head sizes (28-, 32-, and 36- millimeter) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at mean 6 years follow-up (range, 1 to 17.5 years). MethodsThis was a retrospective consecutive study of primary THA at our institution (2003 to 2019). Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals, where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, sex, primary diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, articulation type, and fixation methods. There were 10,104 primary THAs included; median age was 69 years (range, 13 to 101) with 61.5% women. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28-mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32-mm heads, and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36-mm heads. ResultsOverall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36-mm group (2.7 versus 1.3 versus 1.1%). Cox regression analyses showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32 and 36-mm head sizes as compared to 28-mm; this was statistically significant for the 32-mm group (P = .01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32-mm (P = .03) and 36-mm (P = .03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes. ConclusionsWe found a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes. Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with up to 17 years follow-up.

Revision risk by using the direct superior approach (DSA) for total hip arthroplasty compared with postero-lateral approach: early nationwide results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

The direct superior approach (DSA) is a modification of the classic posterolateral approach (PLA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA), in which the iliotibial band and short external rotators are spared. The revision rate of the DSA has not been investigated previously using arthroplasty registry data. We examined the reasons and risk of revision of the DSA, compared with the direct anterior approach (DAA) and PLA. In this population-based cohort study we included 175,543 primary THAs performed between 2014 and 2020 (PLA, n = 117,576; DAA, n = 56,626; DSA, n = 1,341). Competing risk survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, adjusted for potential confounders, were performed. After 3 years, crude revision rates due to any reason were 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.3) for DSA, and 2.9% (CI 2.8-3.0) for PLA. Crude dislocation revision rates were 0.3% (CI 0.1-0.8) for DSA, versus 1.0% (CI 0.9-1.0) for PLA. Dislocation revision rate for DSA did not differ from DAA (0.3% [CI 0.2-0.3]). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated no overall difference in revision rates for the DSA (HR 0.6 [CI 0.4-1.09) compared with the PLA. Lower risk of revision due to dislocation was found in patients operated on through the DSA (HR 0.3 [0.1-0.9]) compared with the PLA. Early nationwide results suggest that the DSA for total hip arthroplasty seems to show a tendency towards a lower risk of revision for dislocation but no overall reduced revision risk compared with the PLA.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk. (1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation? This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05. The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR. Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability. Level III, therapeutic study.

Impact of surgical approach and size of femoral head in risk of dislocation post total hip arthroplasty

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the orthopedic procedures that are both economical and routinely successful. THA offers dependable benefits for patients with end-stage degenerative hip osteoarthritis (OA), including pain alleviation, functional recovery, and overall better quality of life. Methods: This was a retrospective study which was conducted on patients who visited the hospital's outpatient department received THA and also received the revisions of THA, were included. The reasons for THA were analyzed and their revisions were studied. The patients were studied according to various approaches based on the hip surgery, such as, straight lateral, anterolateral, posterolateral, and anterior and also based on the sizes divided into three groups 22-28 mm, 32 mm, and 36 mm. Results: The posterolateral approach (n=40) was used for the majority of THAs, followed by the straight lateral (n=35), anterior (n=25), and anterolateral (n=20) approaches. 22.5% of THAs that were done with a posterolateral approach used a 36-mm head. Each reason for different size of heads have been statistically analyzed. During the six-year follow-up, this (unadjusted) risk was 1.15% for femoral heads measuring 22 to 28 mm. THA with 32-mm heads had a considerably decreased risk of revision for dislocation (0.75%), compared to 36-mm heads (0.55%). Conclusions: The study concluded that the patients who received THA at posterolateral approach, experienced dislocations more frequently and also it has been found that the patients using 22 to 28 mm femoral head had more dislocations.

Robotic Assistance for Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Lower Risk of Revision for Dislocation When Compared to Manual Techniques.

Robotic-assistance total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) and computer navigation THA (CN-THA) have been shown to improve accuracy of component positioning compared to manual techniques; however, controversy exists regarding clinical benefit. Moreover, these technologies may expose patients to risks. The purpose of this study is to compare rates of intraoperative fracture and complications requiring reoperation within 1 year for posterior approach RA-THA, CN-THA, and THA with no technology (Manual-THA). In total, 13,802 primary, unilateral, elective, posterior approach THAs (1770 RA-THAs, 3155 CN-THAs, and 8877 Manual-THAs) were performed at a single institution between 2016 and 2020. Intraoperative fractures and reoperations within 1 year of the index procedure were identified. Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weight based on age, gender, body mass index, femoral cementation, history of spine fusion, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Logistic regression was performed to create odds ratios for complications. Additional regression analysis for dislocation was performed, adjusting for dual mobility and femoral head size. There were no differences in intraoperative fracture and postoperative complication rates between the groups (P= .521). RA-THA had a 0.3 odds ratio (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.9, P= .046) compared to Manual-THA for reoperation due to dislocation. CN-THA had an odds ratio of 3.0 for reoperation due to dislocation (95% confidence interval 0.8-11.3, P= .114) compared to RA-THA. The remaining complication odds ratios, including those for infection, loosening, dehiscence, and "other" were similar between the groups. RA-THA is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation within 1 year of index surgery, when compared to Manual-THA performed through the posterior approach.

Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty Does Not Result in a Higher Risk of Revision Compared with Total Hip Arthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of 36,118 Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Previous randomized studies have suggested that there is no short-term difference between the risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture in elderly patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term revision rates of primary THA and HA for femoral neck fracture in order to determine whether unipolar or bipolar HA increases the all-cause risk of revision in patients 50 to 79 years old. Data for 36,188 patients who underwent primary arthroplasty, including 13,035 unipolar and 8,220 bipolar HAs and 14,863 THAs, from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Unadjusted analyses were performed, as well as analyses adjusted for age, sex, femoral cement, and procedure year. The primary outcome was time to first revision for any cause. Secondary analyses were performed for the reason for revision (i.e., infection, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture). Instrumental variable analysis of hospital preference (for either HA or THA) was performed in order to mitigate the effect of any unmeasured confounding. All analyses were restricted to hospitals performing at least 10 procedures in the prior year. A total of 18,955 procedures were available for the comparison of modular unipolar HA to THA. Both the adjusted analysis performed with use of Cox proportional hazards (hazard ratio [HR], 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64 to 2.31; p < 0.001) and the instrumental variable analysis (HR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.89 to 4.22; p < 0.001) demonstrated a higher risk of revision following modular unipolar HA compared with THA from 3 months postoperatively. A total of 13,168 procedures were available for the comparison of bipolar HA to THA. The adjusted analysis performed with use of Cox proportional hazards showed a significantly higher risk of revision for bipolar HA (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.54; p = 0.01). The instrumental variable analysis showed a similar effect size that was not significant (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.78; p = 0.16). Bipolar HA and THA demonstrated no significant difference in revision risk at long-term follow-up. Unipolar HA demonstrated higher risk of revision from 3 months postoperatively compared to THA. The higher risk of revision for dislocation observed following THA may be offset by the higher risk of revision for acetabular erosion or pain following bipolar HA, resulting in more equivalent revision risk. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Posterior approach, fracture diagnosis, and american society of anesthesiology class iii-iv are associated with increased risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of 33,337 operations from the finnish arthroplasty register.

Background and objective:Dislocation is one of the most common reasons for revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty. Both patient related and surgical factors may influence the risk of dislocation. In this study, we evaluated risk factors for dislocation revision after total hip arthroplasty based on revised data contents of the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.Methods:We analyzed 33,337 primary total hip arthroplasties performed between May 2014 and January 2018 in Finland. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for first dislocation revision using 18 potential risk factors as covariates, such as age, sex, diagnosis, hospital volume, surgical approach, head size, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and fixation method.Results:During the study period, there were 264 first-time revisions for dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. The hazard ratio for dislocation revision was 3.1 (confidence interval 1.7–5.5) for posterior compared to anterolateral approach, 3.0 (confidence interval 1.9–4.7) for total hip arthroplasties performed for femoral neck fracture compared to total hip arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis, 2.0 (confidence interval 1.0–3.9) for American Society of Anesthesiology class III–IV compared to American Society of Anesthesiology class I, and 0.5 (0.4–0.7) for 36-mm femoral head size compared to 32-mm head size.Conclusions:Special attention should be paid to patients with fracture diagnoses and American Society of Anesthesiology class III–IV. Anterolateral approach and 36-mm femoral heads decrease dislocation revision risk and should be considered for high-risk patients.

Are Lipped Polyethylene Liners Associated with Increased Revision Rates in Patients with Uncemented Acetabular Components? An Observational Cohort Study.

Recurrent dislocation after THA remains a serious complication that carries with it a high risk of revision surgery. Previous studies have shown reduced dislocation rates with the use of lipped polyethylene (PE) liners in modular uncemented acetabular components, but there may be increased wear because of impingement, which may lead to aseptic loosening in the longer term; whether the aggregate benefit of lipped PE liners outweighs the risks associated with their use remains controversial. We used data from the New Zealand Joint Registry to (1) compare Kaplan-Meier survival rates, (2) rates of revisions for dislocation between neutral and lipped PE liners, and (3) revision rates for aseptic loosening for the four most commonly used modular uncemented cups. We used data from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to identify 31,247 primary THAs using the four most commonly used uncemented modular acetabular implants from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2018. The lipped liner group comprised 49% males (9924 of 20,240) compared with 42% (4669 of 11,007) in the neutral group (p < 0.001); 96% (19,382 of 20,240) of patients in the liner group had OA versus 95% (10,450 of 11,007) in the neutral group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in other patient characteristics such as age (mean 66.9 years), BMI (mean 29 ± 6 kg/m) and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. The mean follow-up was 5.1 years (SD 3.9) and longest follow-up 19.3 years. The NZJR has more than 96% capture rate and data entry is a mandatory requirement of members of the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. Kaplan-Meier survival rates were compared between 20,240 lipped and 11,007 neutral PE liners. Highly cross-linked polyethylene was used in 99% of lipped liner cups and 85% of neutral liner cups. Associated hazard ratios were calculated using a Cox regression analysis with a Kaplan-Meier revision-free estimates plot. The Kaplan-Meier survival at 10 years for lipped PE liners was 96% (95% confidence interval 95.4 to 96.2) and for neutral liners 95% (95% CI 94.7 to 95.9). After controlling for age, gender approach, femoral head size, and the use of image guidance, the all-cause revision risk was greater for neutral PE liners than that for lipped PE liners (HR 1.17 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.36]; p = 0.032). There was a higher risk of revision for dislocation in those with neutral PE liners than in those with lipped liners (HR 1.84 [95% CI 1.41 to 2.41]; p < 0.001) but no difference in the revision rate for aseptic acetabular component loosening (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.38]; p = 0.511). The use of a lipped PE liner is not associated with a higher rate of aseptic loosening in patients who undergo primary THA compared with a neutral PE liner. Lipped PE liners are associated with lower rates of dislocation and lower all-cause revision rates without any increased association with revision rates for wear and aseptic loosening. Level III, therapeutic study.

No Increase in Survival for 36-mm versus 32-mm Femoral Heads in Metal-on-polyethylene THA: A Registry Study

During the past decade, the 32-mm head has replaced the 28-mm head as the most common head size used in primary THA in many national registries, and the use of 36-mm heads has also increased. However, it is unclear whether 32-mm and 36-mm heads decrease the revision risk in metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA compared with 28-mm heads. (1) In the setting of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, does the revision risk for any reason differ among 28-, 32-, and 36-mm head sizes in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA? (2) Does the revision risk resulting from dislocation decrease with increasing head diameter (28-36 mm) in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA in the same registry? Data were derived from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, a collaboration among the national arthroplasty registries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Patients with primary osteoarthritis who had undergone primary THA with a 28-, 32-, or 36-mm MoP bearing from 2003 to 2014 were included. Patients operated on with dual-mobility cups were excluded. In patients with bilateral THA, only the first operated hip was included. After applying the inclusion criteria, the number of patients and THAs with a complete data set was determined to be 186,231, which accounted for 51% of all hips (366,309) with primary osteoarthritis operated on with THA of any head size and bearing type during the study observation time. Of the included patients, 60% (111,046 of 186,231) were women, the mean age at surgery was 70 (± 10) years, and the median followup was 4.5 years (range, 0-14 years). A total of 101,094 patients had received a 28-mm, 57,853 a 32-mm, and 27,284 a 36-mm head with 32 mm used as the reference group. The revision of any component for any reason was the primary outcome and revision for dislocation was the secondary outcome. Very few patients are estimated to be lost to followup because emigration in the population of interest (older than 65-70 years) is rare. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate THA survival for each group, whereas Cox regression models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for THA revision comparing the 28- and 36-mm head diameters with the 32-mm head diameters adjusting for age, sex, year of surgery, type of cup and stem fixation, polyethylene type (crosslinked versus conventional), and surgical approach. In the adjusted Cox regression model, there was no difference in the adjusted risk for revision for any reason between patients with 28-mm (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-0.16) and 32-mm heads, whereas the risk of revision was higher for patients with 36-mm heads (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26) compared with patients with 32-mm heads. Patients with 28-mm heads had a higher risk of revision for dislocation (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.38-1.98) compared with 32 mm, whereas there was no difference between patients with 36-mm (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02) and 32-mm heads. After adjusting for relevant confounding variables, we found no benefits for 32-mm heads against 28 mm in terms of overall revision risk. However, when dislocation risk is considered, 32-mm heads would be a better option, because they had a lower risk of revision resulting from dislocation. There were no benefits with the use of 36-mm heads over 32 mm, because the transition from 32 to 36 mm was associated with a higher risk of revision for all reasons, which was not accompanied by a decrease in the risk of revision resulting from dislocation. The use of 32-mm heads appears to offer the best compromise between joint stability and other reasons for revision in MoP THA. Further studies with longer followup, especially of 36-mm heads, as well as better balance of confounders across head sizes and better control of patient-related risk factors for THA revision are needed. Level III, therapeutic study.

Late Dislocations After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is the Bearing a Factor?

BackgroundDislocation is a leading cause of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although more common in the first few years after the procedure, dislocation can occur at any time. This study investigated the difference in late dislocation in ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings compared with metal-on-polyethylene and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in THA. MethodsData were used from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, and the cumulative percent revision for dislocation was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for the different bearing surfaces. There were 192,275 THAs included in the study with 101,915 metal-on–cross-linked polyethylene (MoXLPE), 30,256 ceramic-on–cross-linked polyethylene (CoXLPE), and 60,104 CoC. ResultsThe cumulative percent revision for dislocation at 13 years for MoXLPE, CoXLPE, and CoC groups was 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.3), 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.4), and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-1.1), respectively. There was an increased risk of revision for dislocation for MoXLPE compared with CoXLPE and CoC. When stratified for head size, there was no difference in the risk of revision for dislocation between MoXLPE, CoXLPE, and CoC in the 28- and 32-mm head sizes. With a head size of 36 mm, MoXLPE had a higher rate of dislocation compared with other materials. ConclusionBearing surface has little impact on revision for dislocation.

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.

Choice of approach, but not femoral head size, affects revision rate due to dislocations in THA after femoral neck fracture: results from the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register.

Hip dislocation after arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) remains a serious complication. The aim of our study was to investigate FNF patients treated with THA, with a special focus of comparing the effect of surgical approach and femoral head size on the risk of revision for dislocation. Data were derived from the Lithuanian Arthroplasty Register, and we calculated the cumulative revision rates after surgery. For survival analysis, we used revision due to dislocation as an end-point. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyse the influence of various covariates (age, gender, femoral head size, surgical approach). A total of 8,813 primary THAs were registered from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013, of which 1,412 were due to FNF: 899 involved 28-mm femoral heads and the remaining 513 received 32-mm heads. The posterior approach was used in 1,156 cases and the anterolateral approach in 256.. At the end of the follow-up period, 74 hips had been revised for recurrent dislocation. Cox regression adjusting for age, gender and head size showed that the posterior approach had 2.3-times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-5.0, p = 0.04] greater risk of revision for dislocation We conclude that in order to reduce the early dislocation rate in FNF patients treated with THA, it is more effective to use the anterolateral approach than it is to select a femoral head size of 32 mm instead of 28 mm.

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

Background and purpose Previous population-based registry studies have shown that larger femoral head size is associated with reduced risk of revision for dislocation. However, the previous data have not included large numbers of hip resurfacing arthroplasties or large metal-on-metal (> 36-mm) femoral head arthroplasties. We evaluated the association between femoral component head size and the risk of revision for dislocation after THA by using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data.Patients and methods 42,379 patients who were operated during 1996–2010 fulfilled our criteria. 18 different cup/stem combinations were included. The head-size groups studied (numbers of cases) were 28 mm (23,800), 32 mm (4,815), 36 mm (3,320), and > 36 mm (10,444). Other risk factors studied were sex, age group (18–49 years, 50–59 years, 60–69 years, 70–79 years, and > 80 years), and time period of operation (1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010).Results The adjusted risk ratio in the Cox model for a revision operation due to dislocation was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.26–0.62) for 32-mm head size, 0.41 (0.24–0.70) for 36-mm head size, and 0.09 (0.05–0.17) for > 36-mm head size compared to implants with a head size of 28 mm.Interpretation Larger femoral heads clearly reduce the risk of dislocation. The difference in using heads of > 36 mm as opposed to 28-mm heads for the overall revision rate at 10 years follow-up is about 2%. Thus, although attractive from a mechanical point of view, based on recent less favorable clinical outcome data on these large heads, consisting mainly of metal-on-metal prostheses, one should be cautious using these implants.

The design of the acetabular component and size of the femoral head influence the risk of revision following 34 721 single-brand cemented hip replacements

Despite excellent results, the use of cemented total hip replacement (THR) is declining. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cemented THR using the most common combination of components that accounted for almost a quarter of all cemented THRs, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with osteoarthritis who had an Exeter V40/Contemporary THR (Stryker) implanted before 31 December 2010 and recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were included in the analysis. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates, with a significance threshold of p < 0.01. A total of 34 721 THRs were included in the study. The overall seven-year rate of revision for any reason was 1.70% (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.12). In the final adjusted model the risk of revision was significantly higher in THRs with the Contemporary hooded component (hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, p < 0.001) than with the flanged version, and in smaller head sizes (< 28mm) compared with 28mm diameter heads (HR 1.50, p = 0.005). The seven-year revision rate was 1.16% (99% CI 0.69 to 1.63) with a 28mm diameter head and flanged component. The overall risk of revision was independent of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, surgeon volume, surgical approach, brand of cement/presence of antibiotic, femoral head material (stainless steel/alumina) and stem taper size/offset. However, the risk of revision for dislocation was significantly higher with a 'plus' offset head (HR 2.05, p = 0.003) and a hooded acetabular component (HR 2.34, p < 0.001). In summary, we found that there were significant differences in failure between different designs of acetabular component and sizes of femoral head after adjustment for a range of covariates.

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.