Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures (PFF) are associated with stem instability and often require a demanding stem implant revision (SR) or internal fixation (ORIF). This latter surgery is increasingly performed in the last few years instead of SR, but it is unclear which is the best treatment to manage PFF patients. The aim of this study is the compare the outcomes of B2/B3 PFF managed by either ORIF or SR, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation. CONCLUSION: ORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Impact of previous lumbar spine surgery on total hip arthroplasty and vice versa: How long should we be concerned about mechanical failure?

INTRODUCTION: This registry study aims to assess the prevalence and demographic characteristics of patients with lumbar spine (LS) surgical procedures who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA), to compare the long-term survival and causes of failure of THA in patients who previously underwent LS fusion and non-fusion surgical procedures, and to evaluate the risk of undergoing a revision LS surgery after THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent LS surgery followed by THA were identified by cross-referencing data from the Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants Registry and the Regional Hospital Discharge Database. Three groups of THA patients were identified: patients who underwent previous lumbar surgery with fusion (LS fusion-THA), without fusion (LS non-fusion-THA), and a control group with only THA (No LS surgery-THA). Demographic data, THA survival, number and causes of failure, and data on revision procedures on THA and LS were collected. RESULTS: Of the total of 79,984 THA, 2.2% of patients had a history of LS procedures. THA only patients showed better results, while patients in the LS fusion-THA group had worse implant survival at 5-year follow-up. In the LS fusion-THA and LS non-fusion-THA, mechanical THA failures were more frequent in the first two years after implantation. There were no differences between groups regarding the risk of undergoing LS revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: LS surgery negatively affects THA survivorship. In patients who previously underwent LS fusion and non-fusion surgical procedures, most THA failure occurs in the first two years after implant. The study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between the hip and the LS and provides useful guidance for clinical practice.

Risk of Dislocation and Revision Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Lumbar Fusion With Spinopelvic Fixation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of spinopelvic fixation in addition to lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) on dislocation/instability and revision in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been reported previously. METHODS: The PearlDiver Research Program was used to identify patients aged 30 and above undergoing primary THA who received (1) THA only, (2) THA with prior single-level LSF, (3) THA with prior 2-5 level LSF, or (4) THA with prior LSF with spinopelvic fixation. The incidence of THA revision and dislocation/instability was compared through logistic regression and Chi-squared analysis. All regressions were controlled for age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, 465,558 patients without history of LSF undergoing THA were examined and compared to 180 THA patients with prior spinopelvic fixation, 5,299 with prior single-level LSF, and 1,465 with prior 2-5 level LSF. At 2 years, 7.8% of THA patients with prior spinopelvic fixation, 4.7% of THA patients with prior 2-5 level LSF, 4.2% of THA patients with prior single-level LSF, and 2.2% of THA patients undergoing only THA had a dislocation event or instability (P < .0001). After controlling for length of fusion, pelvic fixation itself was associated with higher independent risk of revision (at 2 years: 2-5 level LSF + spinopelvic fixation: aHR = 3.15, 95% CI 1.77-5.61, P < .0001 vs 2-5 level LSF with no spinopelvic fixation: aOR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.76, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: At 2 years, spinopelvic fixation in THA patients were associated with a greater than 3.5-fold increase in hip dislocation risk compared to those without LSF, and an over 2-fold increase in THA revision risk compared to those with LSF without spinopelvic fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Porous tantalum shell and augment for acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study.

AIM: The use of porous tantalum trabecular metal (TM) shell and augment to reconstruct acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a reliable technique. We evaluated the mid-term implant survival, clinical, and radiological outcomes of our first 48 revisions using this technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients (48 hips) who had acetabular revision of THA between 2011 and 2017 using TM shell and augment with possible mid-term follow-up were included. Twenty-two patients were men (49%) and 23 were women (51%), mean age was 62.5 years (34 to 85) and mean follow-up was 75 months (54 to 125). Twenty-four hips (50%) had a Paprosky IIIA defect, 14 (29.2%) had a type IIIB defect, six (12.5%) had a type IIC defect, and four hips (8.3%) had a type IIB defect. None of the patients had pelvic discontinuity (PD). RESULTS: At a mean 6.25 years follow-up, all hips remained well-fixed and implant survival of 100% with the need of re-revision as the end point. Screw fixation was used for all shells; augments and the shell-augment interface was cemented. Excellent pain relief (mean WOMAC score pain 90.5, (38.3 to 100)), and functional outcomes (mean WOMAC function 88.3 (31.9 to 100), mean OHS 89.2 (31.8 to 100)) were noted. Patient satisfaction scores were excellent. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated satisfactory mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes of using TM shell and augment for reconstructing major acetabular defects without PD in revision THA.

Does Timing of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Prior to or After Lumbar Spine Fusion Have an Effect on Dislocation and Revision Rates?

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) following lumbar spine fusion have an increased incidence of dislocation compared to those without prior lumbar fusion. The purpose of this study is to determine if timing of THA prior to or after lumbar fusion would have an effect on dislocation and revision incidence in patients with both hip and lumbar spine pathology. METHODS: One hundred percent Medicare inpatient claims data from 2005 to 2015 were used to compare dislocation and revision risks in patients with primary THA with pre-existing lumbar spine fusion vs THA with subsequent lumbar spine fusion within 1, 2, and 5 years after the index THA. A total of 42,300 patients met inclusion criteria, 28,668 patients of which underwent THA with pre-existing lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) and 13,632 patients who had prior THA and subsequent LSF. Patients who had THA first followed by LSF were further stratified based on the interval between index THA and subsequent LSF (1, 2, and 5 years), making 4 total groups for comparison. Multivariate cox regression analysis was performed adjusting for age, socioeconomic status, race, census region, gender, Charlson score, pre-existing conditions, discharge status, length of stay, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Patients with prior LSF undergoing THA had a 106% increased risk of dislocation compared to those with LSF done 5 years after THA (P < .001). Risk of revision THA was greater in the pre-existing LSF group by 43%, 41%, and 49% at 1, 2, and 5 years post THA compared to the groups with THA done first with subsequent LSF. Dislocation was the most common etiology for revision THA in all groups, but significantly higher in the prior LSF group (26.6%). CONCLUSION: Results of this study demonstrate that sequence of surgical intervention for concomitant lumbar and hip pathology requiring LSF and THA respectively significantly impacts the fate of the THA performed. Patients with prior LSF undergoing THA are at significantly higher risk of dislocation and subsequent revision compared to those with THA first followed by delayed LSF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Acetabular Erosion After Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Femoral Replacement for Malignant Bone Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Hemiarthroplasty megaprosthetic proximal femur reconstruction after tumor resection is a widespread procedure in orthopedic oncology. One potential complication is acetabular wear requiring secondary acetabular revision. The study's purpose is to investigate prevalence of acetabular erosion, secondary revisions, and potential risk factors. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 112 patients who underwent proximal femur replacement after resection of a malignant bone tumor and had radiological follow-up longer than 12 months. Patient demographic, surgical, and oncologic factors were recorded, acetabular wear was measured using the classification proposed by Baker, and prosthetic failure was classified using the International Society on Limb Salvage classification. Functional assessment was performed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score and Harris Hip Score. RESULTS: Prevalence of acetabular wear was 28.6%. Secondary conversion to total hip arthroplasty was required in 5 patients (4.6%), all treated for primary bone tumors. No patient treated for metastatic tumor had higher grade acetabular wear or required revision. Significant risk factors for the development of acetabular wear were age under 40 (P = .035) and longer follow-up (63 vs 43 months, P = .004). Other patient, surgical, or adjuvant treatment-related factors were not associated with acetabular revision or acetabular wear. The dislocation rate in the patient cohort was 0.9%. CONCLUSION: Bipolar hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral replacement represents a durable reconstruction after tumor resection. Hip instability is rare. Acetabular erosion is rare and can be successfully treated with conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Young patients with long-term survival over 10 years are at risk. In reconstruction for metastases, instability and acetabular wear are rare.

Segmental acetabular rim defects, bone loss, oversizing, and press fit cup in total hip arthroplasty evaluated with a probabilistic finite element analysis.

PURPOSE: Management of segmental rim defects and bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the elderly prior to total hip replacement is unclear within classification systems for acetabular bone loss. In this study, our objectives were (1) to understand how a reduction in BMD in the elderly affects the oversizing of a press-fit cup for primary fixation and (2) to evaluate whether the location of the segmental defect affected cup fixation. METHODS: A finite element (FE) model was used to simulate and evaluate cup insertion and fixation in the context of segmental rim defects. We focused on the distribution of patients over age 70 and used BMD (estimated from CT) as a proxy for aging's implications on THR and used probabilistic FE analysis to understand how BMD loss affects oversizing of a press-fit cup. RESULTS: A cup oversized by 1.10 ± 0.28 mm provides sufficient fixation and lower stresses at the cup-bone interface for elderly patients. Defects in the anterior column and posterior column both required the same mean insertion force for cup seating of 84% (taken as an average of 2 anterior column and 2 posterior column defects) compared to the control configuration, which was 5% greater than the insertion force for a superior rim defect and 12% greater than the insertion force for an inferior rim defect. CONCLUSIONS: A defect along the superior or inferior rim had a minimal effect on cup fixation, while a defect in the columns created cup instability and increased stress at the defect location.

Validation of Synovial Aspiration in Girdlestone Hips for Detection of Infection Persistence in Patients Undergoing 2-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of synovial aspiration in Girdlestone hips, without a Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer, for the detection of infection persistence before total hip arthroplasty (THA) reimplantation. METHODS: Seventy-four patients undergoing stage revision THA surgery were included in this retrospective cohort study. Both synovial cultures and serum C-reactive protein values were acquired before explantation of the THA and of the Girdlestone hip before reimplantation. RESULTS: The diagnostic performance of the synovial aspiration of the Girdlestone hip achieved a sensitivity of only 13% and a specificity of 98%. The determination of the serum C-reactive protein value for Girdlestone hips achieved a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of only 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the Girdlestone aspiration can neither reliably confirm nor exclude a persistence of infection.

Comparison of health care costs between aseptic and two stage septic hip revision.

The number of septic and aseptic total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions will increase, which involves a greater financial burden. We here provide a retrospective consecutive analysis of the major variable direct costs involved in revision THA for aseptic and septic failure. A total of 144 patients (30 septic, 114 aseptic) treated between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012 was included. The management of septic THA loosening is much more expensive than that of aseptic loosening ($14,379.8 vs. $5,487.4). This difference is mainly attributable to the two-stage exchange technique used for septic failure (hospital stay: 40.2 vs. 15.6 days) and significantly higher implant costs ($3,930.9 vs. $2,298.2). The septic implantation part is on average $3,384.6 more expensive than aseptic procedures (P < .001).

Cement-in-cement technique of the femoral component in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision: A systematic review of the contemporary literature.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of cemented femoral stems revisions using the cement-in-cement technique in aseptic conditions after total hip arthroplasty have been widely described. METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included (620 revision THA). Revision rate for complications related to the femoral side was 1.4% at mid-term follow-up (5.4 years). Periprosthetic femoral fracture rate was 1.1%, aseptic loosening of the femoral component 0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Cement-in-cement revision technique of the femoral component is associated with a high mid-term success rates (98.6%) and is potentially less challenging than other revision techniques.

Use of morselized allografts for acetabular reconstruction during THA revision: French multicenter study of 508 cases with 8 years' average follow-up.

BACKGROUND: In the context of acetabular reconstruction, bone defects can be filled with processed or unprocessed bone allografts. Published data are often contradictory on this topic and few studies have been done comparing processed allografts to fresh-frozen ones. This led us to conduct a large study to measure the factors impacting the survival of THA revision: (1) type of allograft and cup, (2) technical factors or patient-related factors. HYPOTHESIS: Acetabular reconstruction can be performed equally well with frozen or processed morselized allografts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter study of acetabular reconstruction included 508 cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The follow-up for the frozen grafts was shorter (7.86 years±1.89 [5-12.32]) than that of the processed grafts (8.22 years±1.77 [5.05-15.48]) (p=0.029). However, the patients were younger at the time of the primary THA procedure in the frozen allograft group (51.5 years±14.2 [17-80]) than in the processed group (57.5 years±13.0 [12-94]) (p<0.001) and were also younger at the time of THA revision (67.8 years±12.2 [36.9-89.3] versus 70 years±11.7 [25-94.5]) (p=0.041). RESULTS: There were more complications overall in the frozen allograft group (46/242=19.0%) than the processed allograft group (35/256=13.2%) (p=0.044) with more instances of loosening in the frozen group (20/242 [8.2%]) than in the processed group (6/266 [3.3%])(p=0.001). Conversely, the dislocation rate (16/242=6.6% vs. 17/266=6.4%) (p=0.844) and infection rate (18/242=7.4% vs. 15/266=5.7%) (p=0.264) did not differ between groups. The subgroup analysis reveal a correlation between the occurrence of a complication and higher body mass index (BMI) (p=0.037) with a higher overall risk of complications in patients with a BMI above 30 or under 20 (p=0.006) and a relative risk of 1.95 (95% CI: 1.26-2.93). Being overweight was associated with a higher risk of dislocation (relative risk of 2.46; 95% CI: 1.23-4.70) (p=0.007). Loosening was more likely to occur in younger patients at the time of the procedure (relative risk of 2.77; 95% CI: 1.52-6.51) (p=0.040) before 60 years during the revision. Lastly, patients who were less active preoperatively based on the Devane scale had an increased risk of dislocation (relative risk of 2.51; 95% CI: 1.26-8.26) (p=0.022). DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis was not confirmed. The groups were not comparable initially, which may explain the differences found since the larger number of loosening cases in the frozen allograft group can be attributed to group heterogeneity. Nevertheless, morselized allografts appear to be suitable for acetabular bone defect reconstruction. A randomized study would be needed to determine whether frozen or processed allografts are superior. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, comparative retrospective study.