Large Femoral Heads Decrease the Incidence of Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty

185

Background Lack of consensus continues regarding the benefit of anteriorly based surgical approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocations for various approaches used in primary THAs from a community-based healthcare organization. Questions/purposes (1) What is the incidence of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation for primary THA in a large community-based healthcare organization? (2) Does the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation vary by THA surgical approach? Methods The Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify primary THAs performed between April 1, 2001 and December 31, 2011. Endpoints were septic revisions, aseptic revisions, and dislocations. The exposure of interest was surgical approach (posterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, direct anterior). Patient, implant, surgeon, and hospital factors were evaluated as possible confounders. Survival analysis was performed with marginal multivariate Cox models. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. A total of 42,438 primary THAs were available for analysis of revision outcomes and 22,237 for dislocation. Median followup was 3 years (interquartile range, 1-5 years). The registry's voluntary participation is 95%. The most commonly used approach was posterior (75%, N = 31,747) followed by anterolateral (10%, N = 4226), direct anterior (4%, N = 1851), and direct lateral (2%, N = 667). Results During the study period 785 hips (2%) were revised for aseptic reasons, 213 (0.5%) for septic reasons, and 276 (1%) experienced a dislocation. The revision rate per 100 years of observation was 0.54 for aseptic revisions, 0.15 for septic revisions, and 0.58 for dislocations. There were no differences in adjusted risk of revision (either septic or aseptic) across the different THA approaches. However, the anterolateral approach (adjusted HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.63, p = 0.002) and direct anterior approach (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87, p = 0.017) had a lower risk of dislocation relative to the posterior approach. There were no differences in any of the outcomes when comparing the direct anterior approach with the anterolateral approach. Conclusions Anterior and anterolateral surgical approaches had the advantage of a lower risk of dislocation without increasing the risk of early revision. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Volume 473, Number 11, November 2015 Primary THA Surgical Approach 3405 larger diameter femoral heads, and improved posterior capsular repair after a posterior approach [8,19,20,22,27,47]. Most published studies have indicated that use of larger femoral heads has resulted in overall reduction in rate of dislocation [14,19,20,22,47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anterior and Anterolateral Approaches for THA Are Associated With Lower Dislocation Risk Without Higher Revision Risk

Sheth

Cafri

Inacio

et al. 2015

185

“…In addition, the sizes of the removed and revision acetabular components, femoral heads, and retained femoral components are not available. The size of the femoral head component could be especially useful information for the risk of dislocation, because large femoral head components (36-40 mm) have been shown in two studies to reduce the risk of dislocation after revision THA [17,21]. Third, the acetabular revision admission was excluded from the analysis of dislocation, deep infection, and rerevision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Penrose

Seyler

Wellman

et al. 2016

Background Isolated revision of the acetabular component in the setting of total hip arthroplasty has an increased risk of dislocation. With local soft tissue destruction frequently associated with failed metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings, it is presumed that acetabular revision of these hips will have even greater risk of complications. However, no study directly compares the complications of MoM with metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) acetabular revisions. Questions/purposes In the context of a large database analysis, we asked the following questions: (1) Are there differences in early medical or wound complications after isolated acetabular revision of MoM and MoP bearing surfaces? (2) Are there differences in the frequency of dislocation, deep infection, and rerevision based on the bearing surface of the original implant? Methods A review of the 100% Medicare database from 2005 to 2012 was performed using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. We identified 451 patients with a MoM bearing and 628 patients with a MoP bearing who had an isolated acetabular revision and a minimum followup of 2 years. The incidence, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals for early medical or wound complications were calculated using a univariate analysis at 30 days with patient sex and age group-adjusted analysis for blood transfusion. The incidence, odds ratio, and 95% confidence intervals for dislocation, deep infection, and rerevision were calculated using a univariate analysis at 30 day, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years using a subgroup analysis with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for patient gender and age groups. Results There were no differences between the MoM and MoP isolated acetabular revisions in the incidence of 30-day local complications.

“…This undoubtedly reflects the commonly held tenet that the reason for dislocation must be clearly ascertained and addressed; a single approach to solve the problem will often fail. The option of using larger femoral heads with highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liners appears to be an increasingly successful strategy to reduce dislocation in both primary THA and in the revision setting [1,13,14,18,25,27,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Revision Surgery for the Dislocating Total Hip Arthroplasty: Report From a Large Community Registry

Salassa

Hoeffel

Mehle

et al. 2014

Background Historically, achieving stability for the unstable total hip arthroplasty (THA) with revision surgery has been achieved inconsistently. Most of what we know about this topic comes from reports of high-volume surgeons' results; the degree to which these results are achieved in the community is largely unknown, but insofar as most joint replacements are done by community surgeons, the issue is important.Questions/purposes We used a community joint registry to determine: (1) the frequency of repeat revision after surgery to treat the unstable THA; (2) what surgical approaches to this problem are in common use in the community now; (3) are there differences in repeat revision frequency that vary by approach used; and (4) has the frequency of repeat revision decreased over time as surgical technique and implant options have evolved? Methods We reviewed 6801 primary THAs performed in our community joint registry over the last 20 years. One hundred eighteen patients (1.7%) with a mean age of 67 years were revised within the registry for instability/ dislocation. Failure was defined as a return to the operating room for rerevision surgery for instability. Minimum followup was 2 years (average, 9.4 years; range, 2-20 years) with six patients having incomplete followup. The frequency of rerevisions was calculated and compared using Pearson's chi-square test. Cumulative rerevision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and types of revision procedures were compared using the log-rank test. Results The initial revision procedure was successful in 108 patients (92%); 10 patients underwent repeat surgery for recurrent dislocation after their initial revision surgery. The most frequently performed procedure was revision of the head and liner only (35 of 118 [30%]); constrained devices were used in 19% (22 of 118) of the procedures. There was no difference in the cumulative rerevision rates for instability or dislocation by type of revision procedure performed. Six of 22 constrained liners were rerevised for varying indications. There was no difference in frequency of repeat revision for instability between those patients revised for THAs performed before 2003 and those managed more recently. Conclusions Revision surgery for unstable THA is successfully managed in the community with a variety of