Stem Revision Research Articles

Comparison of the functional outcomes after treatment of periprosthetic hip fractures with femoral stem loosening: Locking plate fixation with or without femoral stem revision

IntroductionPeriprosthetic fractures have become one of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty, with the treatment strategy guided by the Vancouver and SOFCOT classification systems. The main objective of this work was to compare the functional outcomes and mortality rate in patients who suffered a periprosthetic hip fracture with femoral stem loosening and who were treated either by internal fixation with locking plate only, or in combination with revision of the existing femoral stem with a cemented stem. The secondary objective was to compare the blood loss, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, living arrangements, time to weight bearing and major complications between these two treatment strategies. The starting hypothesis was that there is no difference in the functional outcomes between these two groups. Materials and methodsThis was a single center, retrospective study of patients treated between 2013 and 2019. Thirty-six patients (54%) underwent femoral stem revision (FSR group) and 31 patients (46%) were treated by locking plate fixation only (ORIF group). In this population, 19 of the patients had been residing at a nursing home before the surgical treatment: 12 (33%) in the FSR group and 7 (23%) in the ORIF group (p=0.33). The mean preoperative Parker score was 7.03 (± 1.48) in the FSR group versus 5.19 (± 1.92) in the ORIF group. The functional outcomes at the final review were evaluated using the Parker score, HHS (Harris Hip score), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index) and Oxford score. Fracture healing was determined on radiographs centered over the hip joint with the entire femur visible on AP and lateral views. All patients were reviewed at a minimum of 1 year for clinical and radiological assessments. ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 28 months [12–85], the Oxford score was 40.4 (± 10.6) in the FSR group versus 37.1 (± 13.5) in the ORIF group (p=0.34), WOMAC of 45.5 (± 26.9) versus 50.5 (± 32.4) (p=0.56), and HHS of 62.7 (± 25.5) versus 60.3 (± 28.6) (p=0.79). The Parker score at the final assessment was 5.14 (± 1.96) in the FSR group versus 4.64 (± 2.17) in the ORIF group (p=0.33). In the FSR group, 10 patients were at a nursing home (34%), 6 of whom were not there initially, versus 6 in the ORIF group (43%), 5 of whom were not there initially (p=0.59). The mean operating time was 152±41.4 minutes (minimum: 85; maximum: 254) in the FSR group versus 89.2 (± 44.1) minutes (minimum: 39; maximum: 280) in the ORIF group (p<0.001). Resumption of full weight bearing occurred at 6 weeks in 21 patients (58%) in the FSR group versus 14 patients (47%) in the ORIF group (p=0.023). There were 5 major complications (14%) in the FSR group versus 7 (23%) in the ORIF group (p=0.35). Among the reviewed patients, the union rate was 86% on the latest radiographs in the FSR group versus 78% in the ORIF group. DiscussionThere was no statistically significant difference between groups in the various functional scores, confirming our study hypothesis. Internal fixation with a locking plate appears to be an acceptable solution for treating periprosthetic hip fractures in which the femoral stem has loosened. Level of evidenceIII, comparative retrospective study.

A 24-year single-centre experience with Collum Femoris Preserving stem: clinical and radiological results in young and elderly population.

The primary aim was to evaluate the long-term follow-up of Collum Femoris Preserving (CFP) stem, specifically focusing on stem survivorship, complications, as well as on clinical and radiological results. The secondary study objective is an age-based sub-analysis (<65 years vs. ⩾65 years) of long-term results. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent CFP implantation between 1997 and 2009. A total of 311 patients (342 hips) were included with a mean follow-up of 15.8 ± 2.2 (range 11-24) years. 2 age groups were analysed: Group-Y (age <65) and Group-E (age ⩾65). Group-Y included 182 hips (mean follow-up 16.3 ± 4.2 years), whereas Group-E included 160 hips (mean follow-up 15.5 ± 3.7 years). Clinical (HHS, OHS and VAS) and radiological data were obtained at final follow-up. Any complications, reoperations, prosthetic components revisions and stem revisions were analysed. According to HSS score, 95% of patients reported excellent/good results (95.6% Group-Y vs. 94.4% Group-E) with an overall stem survival rate of 93.3% (94% Group-Y vs. 92.5% Group-E; p = 0.37). Overall, 87% of stem revisions were performed with primary stems. The rate of prosthetic components revision was 9.9 % (9.9% in Group-Y vs. 10% in Group-E; p = 1). The reoperation rate was 10.8% (11.5% in Group-Y vs. 10.0% in Group-E; p = 0.73). The CFP stem provides good clinical and radiological long-term results with low rate of complications in both young and elderly patients. No significant difference in stem revision and reoperation rates was observed between the 2 groups. Both in elderly and young patients, CFP stem allows revisions to be performed with primary stems.

Direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty: How to reduce complications - A 10-years single center experience and literature review.

BACKGROUNDThe direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty (DAA-THA) is increasing in popularity due to some advantages such as less surgical trauma, minimal dissection of soft tissues, shorter rehabilitation times, faster return to daily activities, lower incidence of dislocation. On the other hand, the literature reports a high rate of intraoperative complications, with many different rates and complication types in the published papers. AIMTo analyze our complications comparing results with the literature; to report measures that we have taken to reduce complications rate.METHODSAll DAA-THA patients with one year minimum follow up who were operated at a single high-volume centre, between January 2010 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. All surgeries were performed using cementless short anatomical or straight stems and press fit cups. Patients’ follow-up was performed, at 6 wk, 3 mo, then annually post-surgery with clinical and radiological evaluation. Primary outcomes were stem revision for aseptic loosening and all-cause stem revision. Second outcome was intra-operative and post-operative complications identification.RESULTSA total of 394 patients underwent DDA-THA from January 2010 and December 2019, for a total of 412 hips; twelve patients lost to follow-up and one patient who died from causes not related to surgery were excluded from the study. The average age at the time of surgery was 61 years (range from 28 to 78 years). Mean follow-up time was 64.8 mo (range 12-120 mo). Seven stems were revised. One cortical perforation, one trochanteric and lateral cortical wall intraoperative fracture, one diaphyseal fracture, three clinically symptomatic early subsidence and one late aseptic loosening. We also observed 3 periprosthetic fractures B1 according to the Vancouver Classification. Other minor complications not requiring stem revision were 5 un-displaced fractures of the calcar region treated with preventive cerclage, one early infection, one case of late posterior dislocation, 18 case of asymptomatic stem subsidence, 6 cases of lateral cutaneous femoral nerve dysesthesia.CONCLUSIONDAA is associated to good outcomes and lower incidence of dislocation. Complication rate can be reduced by mindful patient selection, thorough preoperative planning, sufficient learning curve and use of intraoperative imaging.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Modular Proximal Stem Modified for Asians: Medium-Term Clinical Results and Perioperative Complications.

This study aimed to examine the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of revision THA using the S-ROM-A stem, a modification of the S-ROM stem intended for Asians. Femoral reconstruction using the S-ROM-A stem was performed in 126 hips that underwent revision THA. All patients were followed for perioperative complications. In addition, clinical and radiographic outcomes at a mean of 8 (range 5-14) years postoperatively were evaluated in 96 hips of 86 patients (76%). The most common perioperative complication was a femoral fracture, occurring in 16 hips (13%), including 11 intraoperative and 5 postoperative fractures. Dislocation occurred in five hips (4.0%), infection in three hips (2.4%), and trunnionosis in two hips (1.6%), including late complications. The total second stem revision was performed in two hips while stem only second revision preserving the bone ingrown sleeve was performed in four hips. With a second revision for aseptic loosening as the endpoint, the 13-year stem survival rate was 100%. Hip function as assessed by the Japanese Orthopedic Association score improved from a mean of 48 points preoperatively to 87 points 8 years postoperatively (P < .05). Radiological evaluation at the final follow-up showed that 95 hips (99%) achieved bone ingrowth fixation and one hip (1%) achieved fibrous stable status. Revision THA using the S-ROM-A stem resulted in good medium-term outcomes. Although modifications of the stem length and shape may be effective in preventing fractures in Asians with relatively small body sizes, attention should be paid to the occurrence of trunnionosis, which may be associated with the decreased taper size.

Cement-in-cement versus uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures

BackgroundTo compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF). MethodsPatients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database. ResultsWe identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate. ConclusionWith appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

IntroductionPeriprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures “around the stem” are still debated due to lack of high-level studies.Materials and methodA 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.ResultsVancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus.DiscussionThe primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniquesConclusionsThe absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Is there a role for cementless primary stem in hip arthroplasty for early or late fixation failures of intertrochanteric fractures?

BackgroundThe choice of femur stems during the hip arthroplasty procedures for patients with treatment failure of intertrochanteric fractures (ITF) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the surgical complication and reoperation rates between cementless primary and revision stems in the early (≤3 months) and late (> 3 months) fixation failures of ITF.MethodsThis was a retrospective, cohort study conducted in a single, tertiary referral hospital of Taipei, Taiwan. We included hip arthroplasty procedures for failed ITF using cementless primary or revision stems. There were 40 and 35 patients who had early and late fixation failure of ITF, respectively. The patient demographics, time to fixation failure, surgical complications and medical complications were recorded for analysis.ResultsWe included 75 patients that underwent hip arthroplasty procedure for failed ITF using cementless primary (n = 38) or revision (n = 37) stems. The mean age was 79.3 years and 56% of the patients were female. In the early fixation failure group, the complication rate was similar between the primary and revision stems (44% vs. 29%, p = 0.343). However, there was a trend toward a higher reoperation rate (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.061) of using the primary stem, compared with the revision stem. In the late fixation failure group, the rate of complication and reoperation was similar between the two stem types.ConclusionFor early fixation failures of ITFs, we caution against the use of cementless primary stems due to a trend towards an increased risk of reoperations compared to the use of cementless revision stems. However, in late fixation failures of ITFs, there is a role for cementless primary stems.Level of evidenceIII, retrospective cohort study.

Midterm results of titanium conical Wagner stem with challenging femoral anatomy: Survivorship and unique bone remodeling

BackgroundComplex anatomy of the proximal femur makes total hip arthroplasty (THA) more challenging. Short, straight, fluted and conical titanium stem like the Wagner Cone can be helpful to address small femoral canal, increased femoral neck version, important leg length discrepancy or proximal femoral deformity. The outcome in these patients is less assured and associated with high rate of complications. Therefore, we did a retrospective study aiming to answer: 1) can the Wagner Cone stem provide acceptable mid- to long-term implant survivorship; 2) help minimizing perioperative adverse events; 3) produce favorable clinical outcome measured by WOMAC score; and 4) be associated with a favorable radiographic femoral bone remodeling at the last follow-up? HypothesisWagner Cone stem is an advantageous solution for the distorted proximal femur in complex THA. Patients and methodOur cohort was derived from the patient registries where medical records of 88 patients (103 hips) who underwent primary THA using the Wagner prosthesis were retrospectively reviewed. Then, data was analyzed for patients’ demographics and surgical data, and comparing preoperative, immediate postoperative and last follow-up data. Eleven patients (12 hips) were excluded (7 hips followed up less than 2 years or lost to follow-up, 3 hips that had the Wagner stem for revision and 2 Wagner stems inserted for periprosthetic fracture). This left 77 patients (91 hips) with Wagner cone stems implanted for more than 2 years between March 2003 and February 2017 by 7 surgeons in 3 academic hospitals. Implant revision, reoperations, WOMAC score and radiographic analyses were recorded at last follow-up. ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 7.8 (range, 2.0–16.2) years, Wagner stem survivorship was 98.9% (95% CI: 94 to 100%) with one (1.1%) stem revision for failure of osteointegration. Five (5.5%) acetabular revisions, one for aseptic loosening, 2 for adverse reaction to metal debris and 2 for infection. One (1.1%) sciatic neuropathy and 4 (4.4%) intraoperative fractures were encountered. The mean WOMAC score was 90.5±11.4 (59–100). Radiographic analysis showed clear signs of stem osseointegration and hypertrophic bone remodeling in 82 cases (92.1%). ConclusionsUsed in complex cases with proximal distorted femurs, the Wagner Cone stem demonstrated a low complication rate, a high-rate consistent adaptive bone remodeling, excellent clinical results, and midterm survival. It is a safe, reliable and advantageous option in complex primary THA. However, the contribution of the underlying cause of the secondary osteoarthritis on the long-term survival of the stem remains to be demonstrated. Level of evidenceIV; retrospective study.

Fully hydroxyapatite-coated distal locking cementless femoral modular implant for revision total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective study of 94 Renaissance™ stems at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up

IntroductionModular locking revision total hip arthroplasty femoral implants have been little assessed over the long term. We therefore conducted a retrospective assessment of the Renaissance™ fully hydroxyapatite-coated distal locking cementless femoral modular revision implant at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up, analyzing: 1) survivorship, 2) complications, 3) radiologic and functional results, and 4) prevalence of thigh pain. HypothesisThis implant shows more than 90% 10-year survival. Material and methodBetween December 2002 and December 2008, 213 implant exchanges were performed in 206 patients, including 97 Renaissance™ stems in 93 patients. Three patients were excluded for missing data. Survival was analyzed for 94 stems in 90 patients at a mean 11.2±3 years’ follow-up; radiographic and clinical assessment was performed for 48 stems in 45 patients. The survival criterion was implant fracture and/or femoral stem removal. ResultsSurvival was 93.5% at 10 years (95% CI: 86-97) and 91.3% at 15 years (95% CI: 82.9-96). Eight stems (8.5%) were exchanged or removed by last follow-up: 5 for infection (5.3%) and 3 for implant breakage (3.2%). The complications rate was 18.1% (N=17, including the 8 stem revisions): 3 stem exchanges for breakage (3.2%), 9 stem infections (9.6%), 3 dislocations (3.2%), and 2 traumatic greater trochanter fractures (2.1%). For the 45 patients with long-term clinical assessment, the mean Postel Merle d’Aubigné and Harris Hip scores were respectively 15±3 and 80 ±19 at last follow-up. Metaphysis reconstruction was satisfactory in 36/48 cases (75.0%). Seven of the 48 stems (14.6%) assessed at longest follow-up, in 45 patients, were causing thigh pain, unrelated to stress-shielding, distal locking screws or metaphyseal filling index. DiscussionThe Renaissance™ fully hydroxyapatite-coated modular locking stem with curved nail showed 90% 10-year survival, with satisfactory functional results and little thigh pain. Level of evidenceIV; case study without control group.

Zimmer Modular Revision Stem Failure on Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Stem Fracture From Cone Taper Stem Junction

The incidence of Zimmer modular revision (ZMR) hip system fractures is rare. The material of the component decreases the risk of corrosion which titanium-based modular would lower the degree of degradation despite cold welding of the component. In this case presentation, we will discuss 2 cases of implant failure from the cone taper junction of the stem and discuss the susceptible causes of the failure. The new generation of surgery products has numerous successful outcomes and has facilitated the way for modern orthopedic surgeons. Despite the high rate of satisfying results, reports of implant failure are rare. We present 2 patients in similar situations referring to the same model implant failure. It can be noticed that the force tolerance because of their weight might be a risk factor and some other factors may be missed, including providing sufficient distal bone support for the implant.

Survivorship, complications and patient-reported outcomes in calcar-guided short-stem THA: prospective mid-term multicenter data of the first 879 hips

IntroductionShort stems are a bone and soft-tissue preserving alternative to conventional stems. The aim of this multicenter study is to present the mid-term outcomes of a calcar-guided short stem.Materials and methodsThis is a prospective case series of the first 879 total hip arthroplasties performed on 782 patients across 5 centers using identical calcar-guided short stems. In a mid-term follow-up (6 years), rates and reasons for complications and revisions were documented. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was obtained; patients reported pain and satisfaction using a visual analog scale.ResultsA total of 43 patients died in the study cohort for non-related reasons; 26 patients (3.0%) required at least 1 revision after the index procedure. The survival rate for endpoint stem revision at mid-term was 98.4%. The main reasons for stem revision were aseptic loosening and early periprosthetic fractures. Sex had no influence on stem survival. Older patients or those with a high body mass index showed increased risk for stem revision during follow-up. Dorr type A morphology revealed a significantly lower risk of stem revision than Dorr type B or C (p = 0.0465). The HHS, satisfaction, and load pain at mid-term were 96.5 (SD 8.0), 9.7 (SD 0.9), and 0.5 (SD 1.9), respectively.ConclusionsThis short stem produced highly satisfactory outcomes at mid-term, with 98.4% implant survival for any cause of stem revision and low complication rates. Long-term results are required to further evaluate these promising mid-term results.

Similar patient-reported outcomes for hybrid and cemented stem fixation for aseptic tibial revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of sequential prospective cohorts.

The tibial stem fixation in an aseptic revision of total knee arthroplasty is poorly studied and controversial. The objective of this study was to prospectively compare clinical outcomes between hybrid and cemented fixation of the stem in aseptic tibial revision after a minimum follow-up of 5years. Two sequential prospective cohorts of patients who underwent aseptic tibial revision were compared after a minimum follow-up of five years: 31 had both tibial tray and stem cemented (cemented group), and 42 had a hybrid fixation with tibial tray cemented and stem cementless (hybrid group). Clinical assessment was performed by the Knee Society Scores and reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Radiological assessment was also performed. There were no significant differences in preoperative data between groups. Postoperatively, no significant differences between groups in clinical scores or complication rate were found. Survival of the TKA revision at 5-year was 94% (95% CI 89-98%) in the cemented group, and 98% (95% CI 92-100%) in the hybrid group (ns). Clinical outcomes and implant survival were comparable between hybrid and cemented tibial stem fixation. II.

Clinical results of short external rotators preserving posterolateral approach for hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures in elderly patients

IntroductionEven though the dislocation rate is lower in the hemiarthroplasty (HA) than total hip arthroplasty, it has still developed as one of serious complications in elderly patients. We have used short external rotators (SER) preserving posterolateral approach to reduce dislocation after hip arthroplasty, especially in elderly patients. The present study was conducted to introduce SER preserving posterolateral approach and report the dislocation rate after HA via this approach in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. MethodsBetween January 2015 and July 2019, 307 consecutive elderly patients aged over 70 years who underwent cementless bipolar HA for femoral neck fractures and were followed up for at least one year, were enrolled in this study. All surgeries were performed using the SER preserving posterolateral approach. The demographic and perioperative data were examined and the complications including dislocation were investigated. ResultsMean operation time was 54.3 min, and mean estimated blood loss was 252.4 cc. The mean follow-up time was 22.1 months, HHS was 67.5 points at the final examination Dislocation following HA developed in only one patient (0.3%) with dementia during hospital stay, which was reduced closely with no subsequent recurrence. Periprosthetic femoral fracture occurred in two patients, which was treated with internal fixation in one patient and with stem revision in the other patient. There was no surgical site infection or periprosthetic infection as complications. ConclusionThe SER preserving technique in posterolateral approach effectively can be effective for reducing the dislocation after HA in elderly patients with femoral neck fracture. It can be encouraged in posterolateral approach for HA, especially in elderly patients under the risk of dislocation.

There Is No "Free Lunch" with Total Hip Arthroplasty Incisions: It Is the Pathways and the Procedure, Not the Surgical Approach!: Commentary on the article by Wayne Hoskins, MBBS(Hons), FRACS, PhD, et al.: "The Effect of Surgical Approach and Femoral Prosthesis Type on Revision Rates Following Total Hip Arthroplasty. An Analysis of the Most Commonly Utilized Cementless Stems".

Commentary Surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty has been a particularly hot topic recently. The purported benefits of the anterior approach, including a more rapid recovery and better outcomes, are apparent to many patients with an easy Google search. This has seemingly prompted many surgeons to adopt and promote this approach in their practices. Despite this increased awareness and use of the anterior approach, the comparative data that exist seem to paint a different picture. A meta-analysis on the use of this approach in total hip arthroplasty reported no benefit of one surgical approach over another1. A recent Charnley Award-winning paper also showed that there were no differences in outcomes between the anterior and posterior approaches2. So why the big push for the use of this incision? Both fellowship programs and implant companies are promoting this approach, with the latter linking this incision to robotic surgery or marketing traction tables to assist with this approach during surgery. A multicenter study by Meneghini et al. showed that the anterior approach had higher rates of both dislocation and femoral stem revision than either the anterolateral or posterior approaches3. With use of data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, the study by Hoskins et al. highlights similar problems with the anterior approach. Although there was no difference in the cumulative percent revision between the anterior and posterior surgical cohorts, the anterior approach was characterized by a higher rate of femoral revision for either loosening or periprosthetic fracture. The authors also identified apparent differences in outcomes between the 5 cementless stems when the anterior approach was utilized. An earlier study by Hoskins et al. assessed all 3 surgical approaches among a larger number of patients with use of data from the same joint registry. In that study, Hoskins et al. found higher rates of revisions for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening among procedures performed via the anterior approach; however, that study of >122,000 patients also showed a higher rate of dislocation among procedures performed via the posterior approach4. Additionally, many of these same authors have also reported on a greater learning curve with the anterior approach5. For the present study by Hoskins et al., conclusions must be tempered with the limitations of the study design, which include statistical problems as a result of comparing only 5 stems. Another concern was the lack of control regarding surgeon experience, which may have affected approach-specific findings. A possible limitation of this study might be selection bias between the 2 cohort patient demographics between the anterior and posterior cohort groups. There is more to take from this study than just the statistics regarding the stem design and the higher femoral-sided complication rate with the anterior approach. First, we have to acknowledge a learning curve with the anterior approach. Is it worth enduring such a learning curve for a surgical approach that has no documented outcomes-related benefits? Second, surgeons need to temper their preference for a particular approach with the realization that overpromising and failing to meet unrealistic expectations is a problem for our profession as a whole. The pathways that have been developed for outpatient surgery and the tremendous long-term track record of total hip arthroplasty are what is driving modern day arthroplasty, not the approach6. All approaches have inherent problems. Promoting 1 approach over another is just marketing without substantial proof of superiority. Sticking with evidence-based medicine should be the highest priority for our patients. We should continue to pursue research models that assess implant design in order to help surgeons utilize their preferred approach, with the end goal of providing the best possible care to each individual patient. Certainly surgical technique, clinical experience, and modern-day pathways play the most substantial roles in providing excellent care during total hip arthroplasty. In the future, surgical residents and fellows may consider becoming familiar with all 3 surgical approaches; however, it is unclear whether the typical case volume would allow proficiency in light of the learning curves of each approach. The goal of teaching programs should be to encourage surgeons to tailor surgical approach on a case-by-case basis in order to achieve the best outcomes. Presently, all surgical approaches allow surgeons to successfully perform this remarkable surgical procedure in an outpatient setting in most healthy patients.

Average 22-Year Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Harris-Galante Prosthesis in Patients under 50 Years.

BackgroundThe Harris-Galante (HG) prosthesis is a first-generation, cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) prosthesis. Considering the recent increase in the demand for THA in young patients and their life expectancy, a study with a follow-up duration of longer than 20 years in a young population is needed. Therefore, we evaluated the long-term clinical and radiographic results after cementless THA using the HG prosthesis in patients younger than 50 years.MethodsA total of 61 THAs performed using the HG with a minimum follow-up of 10 years were included. There were 38 men and 11 women with an average age of 46 years and the mean follow-up duration was 22 years. Clinical evaluation included modified Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiographic analysis consisted of cup inclination, anteversion angle, component stability, osteolysis, liner wear rate, wear-through, liner dissociation, and heterotopic ossification. Complications included recurrent dislocation, periprosthetic femoral fracture, and periprosthetic joint infection. Survivorship analysis included cup and stem revision for aseptic loosening, as well as any revision.ResultsThe HHS improved from 46.5 preoperatively to 81.8 postoperatively (p < 0.001). The average linear wear rate was 0.36 mm/yr. A total of 34 hips (56%) were revised: stem revision in 10 (16.4%), cup revision in 9 (14.8%), exchange limited to bearing surface in 8 (13.1%), and revision of all components in 7 (11.5%). Estimated survivorship at 34 years postoperatively was 90.9% for cup revision for aseptic loosening, 80.5% for stem revision for aseptic loosening, and 22.1% for any revision.ConclusionsTHA using the HG prosthesis showed satisfactory estimated survivorship of the acetabular and femoral components at 34 years postoperatively with good clinical outcomes. Bearing-related problems, such as osteolysis and liner dissociation, accounted for 56% of revision operations and were concerns in patients younger than 50 years.

Cause-Specific Stem Revision Risk in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Cemented vs Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation in a US Cohort.

We sought to evaluate the cause-specific revision risk following hybrid (cemented stem mated to a cementless acetabular implant) vs cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a US cohort. Primary elective THA for osteoarthritis was identified using Kaiser Permanente's Total Joint Replacement Registry (2001-2018). Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision, including aseptic loosening, infection, instability, and periprosthetic fracture (PPF), for hybrid vs cementless THA. Analysis was stratified by age (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and gender. The study cohort comprised 88,830 THAs, including 4539 (5.1%) hybrid THAs. In stratified analysis, hybrid THA had a higher revision risk for loosening in females in all 3 age subgroups. A lower risk of revision for PPF was observed following hybrid THA in females aged ≥75 years. For females ≥75 years, cementless THA had an excess PPF risk of 0.9% while hybrid THA had an excess loosening risk of 0.2%, translating to a theoretical prevention of 10 PPF revisions but a price of 3 loosening revisions per 1000 hybrid THAs. No difference in revision risk was observed in males. We observed differences in cause-specific revision risks by method of stem fixation which depended upon patient age and gender. Although the trend toward all cementless fixation continue, there may be a role for hybrid fixation in females ≥75 years to mitigate risk for revision due to PPF at the potential cost of a slight increase in longer term aseptic loosening. Level III.

Cementless hydroxyapatite-coated stem with dual mobility and posterior approach in over-80 year-old patients with osteoarthritis: Rates of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture at a mean 8 years’ follow-up

BackgroundStraight cementless stems are common in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the elderly, but controversial due to higher risk of loosening and periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Apart from registries, results for the Corail implant and dual mobility (DM) in over-80 years-old are not known, notably in case of systematic association to a DM cup. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of Corail implants in patients aged≥80years at implantation for osteoarthritis of the hip, assessing 1) PPF rate and survival for cementless straight stems associated to DM cups, 2) complications, and dislocation in particular, and 3) clinical scores. HypothesisPPF and dislocation rates are low in THA with cementless straight stem associated to DM cup in patients aged≥80years. Patients methodsA retrospective study was conducted in our department for the period July 2007 to December 2012. Inclusion criteria were age≥80years, with primary THA for osteoarthritis. Exclusion criteria were revision procedure and femoral neck fracture. One hundred and twenty-eight consecutive THAs were included, in 120 patients, with a minimum 5years’ follow-up. Clinical results were assessed on Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Data were collected for PPF or dislocation and other complications. ResultsAt a mean 8±1 years’ follow-up (range, 5-10 years), 66 patients (55%, for 68 hips) were alive, 48 (40%, for 54 hips) had died, and 6 (5%, for 6 hips) were lost to follow-up. Median age at surgery was 83years (range, 80–93years). Mean OHS at last follow-up was 41±6 (range, 21–48) and HHS 83±14 (range, 23–100) with mean gain of 32 points (95% CI, [28–36]; p<0.001)). There were 2 cases (1.6%) of PPF, at 2 and 65months, and no dislocations or cases of aseptic loosening. There were 2 cases (1.6%) of intraoperative calcar fracture, treated by wire cerclage with immediate complete weight-bearing, without further complications. With death as a competing risk, cumulative 10-year incidence of femoral stem revision was 1.6% [95% CI: 0.4–6.5], and cumulative incidence of all-cause revision was 4.1% [95% CI: 1.7–9.7]. DiscussionIn an over-80 year-old population, primary THA with straight cementless stem and 2nd generation dual mobility cup was an effective option with low risk of PPF or dislocation after a minimum 5-year of follow-up. Level of evidenceIV; retrospective study.

Long term results of the Bicontact D stem in dysplastic osteoarthritis: a 10-15year follow-up study.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Bicontact D stem with a minimum 10year follow-up that focused on patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). One hundred five patients with osteoarthritis due to DDH who underwent primary THA were included in this study. The mean final follow-up period was 12.7 ± 1.2years (range 10-15years). All cases were evaluated both clinically and radiographically, and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined as stem revision for any reason as the end point. Modified Harris hip score averaged 89.0 ± 1.1 (range 60-98) at the final follow-up. The survivorship was 99.0% (95% confidence interval 93.4-99.9%) at 15.0years, and only one hip with a well-fixed stem required stem revision due to recurrent dislocations. Cortical hypertrophy (CH) was observed in 40 of 105 hips (38.1%), and stress shielding (SS) progressed to grade 3 or 4 in six hips (6 of 105 hips: 5.7%) during the study period. Among the six hips with progressed SS, Dorr type C proximal femoral geometry was seen in five hips. This study of 105 THAs using the Bicontact D stem that focused on DDH patients with a minimum 10year follow-up period achieved satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes. Dorr type C proximal femoral geometry could be considered a risk factor for progressed SS.

Mid-term outcomes following transfemoral revision of total hip arthroplasty for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures

IntroductionPeriprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are often the reason for revising total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Converting these fractures into modified extended trochanteric osteotomy (mETO) facilitates stem revision. Modular revision stems are a common choice with good results. We present mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing RTHA for Vancouver B2/B3 PFF using a tapered, fluted modular stem with an mETO approach. Materials and methodsA single-center analysis of patients with RTHA for Vancouver B2/B3 PFF using a single modular implant with mETO was performed (2007 – 2019). Clinical outcome (mobility, range of motion, function), radiological outcome (fracture healing, stem subsidence) and patient reported outcome measures (FJS-12, HHS, EQ-5D) were assessed. ResultsNinety-seven patients (mean age 78.1 years, BMI 25.8 kg/m2, 85.6% B2-fractures) were included; 80 patients had complete clinical and radiological follow-ups. Normal unaided gait without limping was achieved in 38/80 patients. After one year fracture / mETO healing occurred in 74/80 patients; 5.3 years after surgery, the respective FJS-12, HHS and EQ-5D (available in 34 patients) averaged 81.3 ± 30.2, 71.4 ± 18.7 and 0.8 ± 0.2. We documented 7 in-hospital deaths, 18.8% postoperative complications and 13.8% revisions with stem revisions being most commonly for subsequent PFF or subsidence. ConclusionGood clinical and radiological outcomes and rather low complication and revision rates (18.8% and 13.8%) were achieved. FJS-12 showed excellent results in patients undergoing RTHA for Vancouver B2/B3 PFF using a cementless, dual modular titanium revision stem and an mETO approach. Joint awareness was thereby similar to previously reported primary THA results at 5.3 years follow-up.

Is Stem Revision Necessary for Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures? Analysis of Osteosynthesis Results from 39 Cases.

Although stem revision is recommended for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs), there has recently been a debate whether, under certain conditions, they could be treated by osteosynthesis alone. This study aimed to describe the medium-term clinical and radiological results of several patients with V-B2 fractures treated via osteosynthesis. A retrospective study of patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis without stem revision, operated on between 2009 and 2019, was performed. The type of arthroplasty, type of stem, ASA, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), medical and implant complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological results (consolidation time), and functional results were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients were included. Their average age was 78.82 years. Most of the patients presented ASA ≥ 3 (35/39) and CCI ≥ 5 (32/39). Radiological consolidation was achieved in 93.5% of patients, with an average consolidation time of 92.93 days. The average Parker test score before admission was 5.84 while the current one was 4.92 (5.16 years follow-up). Osteosynthesis without stem revision is a valid surgical alternative in certain types of patients with V-B2 PPHF, depending on previous mobility, fracture pattern (anatomical reconstruction possible), anesthetic risk, comorbidities, and previous hip pain.