Clinical outcomes and survival rates of a uncemented modular revision stem system in hip arthroplasty: a 10-year single-institution study on a frail population.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of primary hip arthroplasty has led to a parallel rise in revision cases. Femoral revision often entails compromised bone integrity, requiring consideration of various solutions for optimal reconstructive options. Despite technological advancements, there is limited evidence on the clinical outcomes of the latest modular revision stems. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and survival rates of next generation uncemented modular revision stem in patients undergoing hip revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center study assessed the survival and failure causes of a specific uncemented modular stem in 48 patients undergoing hip revision surgery between 2012 and 2022. Data included preoperative parameters, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes measured through clinical and radiographic assessments. Forty-eight patients (25 males, 23 females; mean age 72 years) were included, with a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5. Preoperative diagnoses varied, with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) being the most common (45.8%), followed by periprosthetic fractures (27.1%). Partial revisions occurred in 60.4%, total revisions in 39.6%. According to Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, type II and III were the most represented, respectively 35.4% and 50%. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 4.6 years, stem survival was 92.5%. Complications (20%) included dislocation, PJI, fracture, and loosening; the overall reoperation rate was 12.5%. The SF-12 physical score was 43.6, while the mental score was 51.1. The HOOS score was 71.8, and the HHS score was 71.4. Radiographic analysis identified nonprogressive osteolysis in 15.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study on this uncemented modular revision stem demonstrated favorable outcomes in an elder fragile population with moderate to severe femoral bone loss. The implant's modularity provides versatility in addressing various defects, without any implant breakage observed during the study period. Literature comparison highlighted similar outcomes despite sample size differences. The promising results warrant continued investigation into the long-term survivorship of this modular stem system.

Conversion of hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: is the outcome closer to primary or revision total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Along with the advent of newer bearings, hip resurfacing (HR) is gaining renewed interest as a bone sparing alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients. However, the outcome of conversion of failed HR to THA (HRc) remains sparsely described. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complication rates of HRc to those of primary (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) to find out to which group HRc is most comparable. HYPOTHESIS: The study hypothesis was that the outcomes and complications rates of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than rTHA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2011, a continuous series of 207 HR were prospectively included in our institutional registry and retrospectively analyzed. Out of them, 17 HR (8%) were converted to THA. Propensity scores were used to match patients in the HRc group to the pTHA and the rTHA groups using a greedy 1:3 matching procedure (51 pTHA and 51 rTHA). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, perioperative data and complications were analyzed and compared between the three groups. RESULTS: No significant difference between HRc and pTHA was observed in terms of clinical and functional outcomes, duration of surgery, acetabular component diameter and length of hospital stay (p = 0.13 to 0.94). Perioperative blood loss was significantly lower for pTHA than for HRc (p = 0.01). HRc demonstrated significantly higher HHS and HOOS scores than for rTHA at one year (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Duration of surgery was significantly lower in HRc compared to rTHA (p = 0.02) while length of hospital stay was similar (p = 0.84). Complication rate was significantly higher in the rTHA group, compared to HRc and pTHA groups (37.3 vs. 29.4 vs. 11.8%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the clinical and functional outcomes of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than those of rTHA, though complication rate was higher than for pTHA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; Retrospective comparative study.

Cup-Cage Construct for Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at a Mean Follow-Up of 7.7 Years.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular reconstruction in the context of massive acetabular bone loss is challenging. Achieving implant stability in these situations requires special considerations. The cup-cage construct is a treatment option that addresses this issue. This study evaluates survivorship, complications, and functional outcomes using the cup-cage construct. METHODS: A total of 131 cup-cage implants (129 patients) were identified from our retrospective review of revision total hip arthroplasties from January 2003 to January 2022. Among these cases, 100 (76.3%) were women, the mean age at the time of surgery was 68 years (range, 29 to 92; SD [SD], 12.4), and the mean follow-up was 7.7 years (range, 0.02 to 20.3; SD, 5.1). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was conducted with failure defined as revision surgery and/or failure of the cup-cage reconstruction. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 7.7 years, the cup-cage construct survivorship due to all-cause failure was 83.9% (95% CI [confidence interval]: 77.6 to 90.2) at 5 years with 88 hips at risk, 74.8% (95% CI: 66.2 to 83.4) at 10 years with 38 hips at risk, and 69.8% (95% CI: 59.4 to 80.2) at 15 years with 11 hips at risk. The survivorship due to failure from aseptic loosening was 96.7% (95% CI: 93.6 to 99.8) at 5 years with 88 hips at risk and 95.5% (95% CI: 91.6 to 99.4) at 10 and 15 years with 38 and 11 hips at risk, respectively. The revision rate for aseptic loosening of the cup and/or cage, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening of the femoral stem was 5 of 131 (3.8%), 12 of 131 (9.1%), 10 of 131 (7.6%), and 2 of 131 (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The cup-cage construct is a reliable treatment option for the treatment of various acetabular defects. There are favorable survivorship, clinical, and radiographic outcomes, with a satisfactory complication rate.

Bone remodeling after revision total hip arthroplasty for large acetabular defects.

Large acetabular bone defects are challenging in hip revision surgery. Clinical assessment is crucial to evaluate modern technologies in surgical reconstruction. We aimed to better understand the bone remodeling that occurs following acetabular reconstruction. Our objectives were: (1) To characterize changes in the shape of the pelvis by studying sequential computed tomography (CT) scans collected immediately and 1-year postoperatively and (2) to identify which part of the pelvis is most susceptible to remodeling. We used the CT scans taken at two timepoints, of 24 patients with acetabular bone defects classified as Paprosky IIIB, treated with three-dimensional (3D)-printed custom-made acetabular implants. Segmented 3D models of the bony pelvis were co-registered using three different techniques. A global co-registration of the full pelvis was conducted, followed by the co-registration of the innominate bone and then ilium only, on the ipsilateral reconstructed side. The relative movements of the ilium, ischium, and pubis were analyzed from visual inspection and using co-registration metrics (root mean square error and intersection over union). No bone remodeling was found in 14/24 patients (58%). The co-registration of the innominate bone indicated bone remodeling in five cases (21%), while the remaining five cases (21%) presented remodeling in the global co-registration but not the innominate bone co-registration, suggestive of changes occurring at the sacroiliac joint. Changes in the pelvic shape were greatest at the pubis and ischium. Bone remodeling may occur in complex cases of Paprosky type IIIB defects, after acetabular reconstruction (occurrence of 21%, 5/24 cases). Surgeons and engineers should consider this when monitoring implant migration.

Automated design of bone-preserving, insertable, and shape-matching patient-specific acetabular components.

Effective treatment of large acetabular defects remains among the most challenging aspects of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), due to the deficiency of healthy bone stock and degradation of the support columns. Generic uncemented components, which are favored in primary THA, are often unsuitable in revision cases, where the bone-implant contact may be insufficient for fixation, without significant reaming of the limited residual bone. This study presents a computational design strategy for automatically generating patient-specific implants that simultaneously maximize the bone-implant contact area, and minimize bone reaming while ensuring insertability. These components can be manufactured using the same additive manufacturing methods as porous components and may reduce cost and operating-time, compared to existing patient-specific systems. This study compares the performance of implants generated via the proposed method to optimally fitted hemispherical implants, in terms of the achievable bone-implant contact surface, and the volume of reamed bone. Computer-simulated results based on the reconstruction of a set of 15 severe pelvic defects (Paprosky 2A-3B) suggest that the patient-specific components increase bone-implant contact by 63% (median: 63%; SD: 44%; 95% CI: 52.3%-74.0%; RMSD: 42%), and reduce the volume of reamed bone stock by 97% (median: 98%; SD: 4%; 95% CI: 95.9%-97.4%; RMSD: 3.7%).

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Evaluating the Utility of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a Risk Stratification Tool.

Background: This study investigates the association between the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), a measure of malnutrition risk, and 30-day postoperative complications following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for all patients ≥65 who underwent aseptic rTHA between 2015 and 2021. The final study population (n = 7119) was divided into 3 groups based on preoperative GNRI: normal/reference (GNRI >98) (n = 4342), moderate malnutrition (92 ≤ GNRI ≤98) (n = 1367), and severe malnutrition (GNRI <92) (n = 1410). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the association between preoperative GNRI and 30-day postoperative complications. Results: After controlling for significant covariates, the risk of experiencing any postoperative complications was significantly higher with both moderate (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, P < .001) and severe malnutrition (OR 8.79, P < .001). Specifically, moderate malnutrition was independently and significantly associated with deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.01, P = .044), blood transfusions (OR 1.78, P < .001), nonhome discharge (OR 1.83, P < .001), readmission (OR 1.27, P = .035), length of stay >2 days (OR 1.98, P < .001), and periprosthetic fracture (OR 1.54, P = .020). Severe malnutrition was independently and significantly associated with sepsis (OR 3.67, P < .001), septic shock (OR 3.75, P = .002), pneumonia (OR 2.73, P < .001), urinary tract infection (OR 2.04, P = .002), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.01, P = .001), pulmonary embolism (OR 2.47, P = .019), acute renal failure (OR 8.44, P = .011), blood transfusions (OR 2.78, P < .001), surgical site infection (OR 2.59, P < .001), nonhome discharge (OR 3.36, P < .001), readmission (OR 1.69, P < .001), unplanned reoperation (OR 1.97, P < .001), length of stay >2 days (OR 5.41, P < .001), periprosthetic fractures (OR 1.61, P = .015), and mortality (OR 2.63, P < .001). Conclusions: Malnutrition has strong predictive value for short-term postoperative complications and has potential as an adjunctive risk stratification tool for geriatric patients undergoing rTHA.

Use of Computer Navigation for Optimal Acetabular Cup Placement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Case Reports and Surgical Techniques.

Background: The outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) have become increasingly important as their volume increases. Computer navigation, a reliable method to improve component positioning during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), is not well studied in the rTHA setting. Given that dislocation rates following rTHA are significantly higher than those of primary THA, component positioning becomes paramount in these cases. Methods: Here, we present two case reports and surgical techniques, one of a 77-year-old man undergoing rTHA for recurrent hip instability following primary THA, and one of a 61-year-old woman undergoing rTHA for severe iliopsoas bursitis who was at increased risk for instability and dislocation given her history of large segment spinal fusion. Results: Both patients achieved optimal acetabular component positioning after rTHA with imageless computer navigation. Conclusions: The use of imageless computer navigation in rTHA provides accurate and reproducible component positioning during acetabular rTHA.

Outcomes of a Double-Cup Construct to Treat Paprosky 3A and 3B Acetabular Defects at a Mean of 39 Months.

BACKGROUND: Modular reconstruction systems based on porous tantalum (PT) prosthetic components have been increasingly used for the treatment of complex acetabular bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. We report a novel technique that applies a revision cup as a "super-augment" to form a "double-cup" construct for Paprosky type III defects. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on revision total hip arthroplasty cases, comparing those treated with double-cup constructs (DC group, n = 48) to those treated with PT shells and augments (PT group, n = 48). All procedures were performed at the same institute between 2017 and 2022. Clinical outcome evaluation utilized the Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and the 36-Item Short Form Survey. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic assessments measured hip center of rotation (COR) position and leg length discrepancy. Additionally, postoperative complications and implant survivorship were monitored during the follow-up period. RESULTS: The clinical outcomes improved substantially in both groups, which showed no significant difference in the Harris Hip Score (P = .786), the Oxford Hip Score (P = .570), and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (P = .691). Compared to the PT group, the reconstruction COR was significantly closer to the anatomic COR (vertical distance: 2.630 versus 7.355 mm, P = .0034; horizontal distance: 1.881 versus -6.413 mm, P < .0001) in Paprosky 3B type defects. Additionally, postoperative leg length discrepancy was less in the DC group (-8.252 versus -1.821 mm, P = .0008). Dislocation was the main complication in the DC group, and only 1 patient received re-revision due to repeated dislocation. The cumulative survival rate of the DC group (100%; 95% confidence interval 100) was better than the PT group (83.4%; 95% confidence interval 70.5 to 98.6) when re-revisions for aseptic loosening were the endpoint (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: The DC is a reliable revision technique for the reconstruction of Paprosky type III bone defects. Although dislocation remains challenging, the biomechanically superior restoration achieved by this technique lowers the risk of aseptic loosening.

Porous Metal Augments Have Comparable Outcomes to Other Constructs for Severe Acetabular Bone Loss at Mid-Term Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular reconstruction options in the setting of severe bone loss remain limited, with few comparative studies published to date. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for severe bone loss using porous metal augments to cup cage and triflange prostheses. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 180 patients who had Paprosky 3A or 3B acetabular defects and underwent revision THA. Patients treated with porous augments (n = 141) were compared with those who received cup cages or triflange constructs (n = 39). Failure of the acetabular construct was defined as undergoing acetabular revision surgery or radiographic evidence of loosening. RESULTS: There was no difference in acetabular component survivorship in patients undergoing revision THA with porous augments or a cage or triflange prosthesis (92.2 versus 87.2%, P = .470) at a mean follow-up of 6.6 ± 3.4 years. Overall, survivorship free from any revision surgery was comparable between the 2 groups (78.7 versus 79.5%, P = .720). There was also no difference in dislocation (5.7 versus 10.3%, P = .309) or periprosthetic joint infection rates (7.8 versus 10.3%, P = .623). In a subgroup analysis of patients who had pelvic discontinuity (n = 47), survivorship free from any revision surgery was comparable between the 2 groups (79.5 versus 72.2%, P = .543). CONCLUSIONS: Porous metal augments in the setting of severe acetabular bone loss demonstrated excellent survivorship at intermediate-term (mean 6.6 years follow-up, even in cases of pelvic discontinuity, with comparable outcomes to cup cages and triflanges. Instability and infection remain major causes of failure in this patient population, and long-term follow-up is needed.

Complications and Survivorship After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference by Surgical Approach?

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has traditionally been performed through the posterolateral approach (PA). Anterior approaches (AA) for rTHA are increasingly being utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare complications and survivorship from re-revision and reoperation after aseptic rTHA performed using an AA versus a PA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent aseptic rTHA either through an AA (direct anterior approach [DAA], anterior-based muscle sparing [ABMS]) or PA from January 2017 to December 2021. There were 116 patients who underwent AA-rTHA (DAA 50, ABMS 66) or PA-rTHA (n = 105). Patient demographics, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The most common indication in both groups was aseptic loosening (n = 26, 22.4% AA, n = 28, 26.7% PA). Acetabular revision alone was most common in the AA group (n = 33, 28.4%), while both components were most commonly revised in the PA groups (n = 47, 44.8%). In all the AA-rTHA group, the index total hip arthroplasty was performed through a PA in 51% of patients, while the PA-rTHA group had the index procedure performed via AA in 4.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in re-revision rate between the DAA, ABMS, or PA groups (9.55 versus 5.3% versus 11.4%, respectively, P = .11). The most common overall reason for re-revision was persistent instability, with no difference in incidence of postoperative hip dislocation (n = 4, 6.8% DAA, n = 3, 5.3%, n = 10, 9.5% PA; P = .31). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no difference in complication or re-revision survivorship after aseptic rTHA performed through a DAA, ABMS approach, or PA, nor between anterior or posterior-based approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Effect of an exercise intervention targeting hip strengthening in patients undergoing revision total hip replacement-A study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of pain relief and functional improvement in patients undergoing revision total hip replacement (THR). Furthermore, there are no clinical guidelines or consensus on optimal rehabilitation after revision THR. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of an exercise intervention targeting hip strengthening with standard community-based rehabilitation in patients undergoing revision THR. METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled assessor-blinded trial will be conducted at eight hospitals and multiple municipality rehabilitation centers in Denmark. A total of 84 patients undergoing revision THR are estimated to be allocated to either an exercise intervention targeting hip strengthening (NEMEX-STR) or standard community-based rehabilitation (Usual care). Recruitment was initiated in November 2022 and is expected to be completed by June 2024. The primary outcome is change in functional performance measured by the 30 s chair stand test, from baseline to 4 months after the start of intervention. Secondary outcomes include hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score; 40 m fast-paced walk test; 9-step timed stair climb test; leg extensor muscle power; global perceived effect; and adverse events. Other outcomes include The International Physical Activity Questionnaires, pain intensity, and European quality of life-5 dimensions. An intention-to-treat approach will be used for analyzing changes in primary and secondary outcome measures. The trial was approved by the Central Denmark Region Committees on Health Research Ethics (Journal No 1-10-72-134-22) and registered on the Central Denmark Regions' internal list of research projects (Journal No 1-16-02-285-22). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore different rehabilitation programs after revision THR through a randomized controlled trial. The results will provide clinically relevant evidence for optimal rehabilitation after revision THR for improving functional performance, physical function, and quality of life, with great importance for patients, relatives, physiotherapists, and decision-makers. CLINICALTRIAL: GOV: NCT05657054.

Surgical Approach Does Not Influence Instability Risk in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although the direct anterior (DA) approach has increased in popularity for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is limited evidence regarding its use for revision THA. It is unknown whether the dislocation benefit seen in the primary setting translates to revision cases. METHODS: This retrospective review compared the dislocation rates of revision THA performed through DA versus postero-lateral (PL) approaches at a single institution (2011 to 2021). Exclusion criteria included revision for instability, ≥ 2 prior revisions, approaches other than DA or PL, and placement of dual-mobility or constrained liners. There were 182 hips in 173 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 6.5 years (range, 2 to 8 years). RESULTS: There was a trend toward more both-component revisions being performed through the PL approach. There were no differences in dislocation rates between the DA revision and PL revision cohorts, which were 8.1% (5 of 72) and 7.5% (9 of 120), respectively (P = .999). Dislocation trended lower when the revision approach was discordant from the primary approach compared to cases where primary and revision had a concordant approach (4.9 versus 8.5%), but this was not statistically significant (P = .740). No significant differences were found in return to operating room, 90-day emergency department visits, or 90-day readmissions. However, the length of stay was significantly shorter in patients who had DA revisions after a primary PL procedure (P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Dislocation rates following revision THA did not differ between the DA and PL approaches irrespective of the primary approach. Surgeons should choose their revision approach based on their experience and the specific needs of the patient.

Patients' expectations surrounding revision total hip arthroplasty: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasties (RTHA) are associated with a higher complication rate than primary total hip arthroplasties (THA), and therefore it is important for patients to have realistic expectations regarding outcomes. The aim of this literature review was to gather and summarize the available evidence on patients' expectations following RTHA. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Embase from inception to November 2023. Articles assessing patient expectations for RTHA were included. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) study quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A qualitative analysis was performed involving the summarization of study characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: The search strategy generated 7,450 references, of which 5 articles met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7-10. Patients had high expectations concerning future walking ability, pain and implant longevity relative to actual postoperative outcomes. A significant positive correlation was found between fulfilled expectations of pain and walking ability and patient satisfaction (r = 0.46-0.47). Only two studies assessed the fulfillment of patient expectations. Great variability was seen in the measurement of expectations. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing RTHA appeared to have high expectations for pain and functionality compared to postoperative outcomes. However, there was a paucity of high-quality data in this area, limiting the accuracy of the conclusion. Further research is needed, that emphasizes developing a sound theoretical framework for expectations, allowing for the consistent implementation of valid measurement tools for patient expectations.

Acetabular Distraction: Promising 5-Year Outcomes for the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity.

BACKGROUND: Severe acetabular bone loss encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses a clinical challenge. In cases involving pelvic discontinuity, where the ilium is separated superiorly from the inferior ischiopubic segment through the acetabulum, acetabular distraction may be used to restore the biomechanics of the hemipelvis. This technique allows for correct sizing of the acetabulum, and the subsequent peripheral distraction and medial compression at the discontinuity provide initial mechanical stability and biological fixation as bone in growth occurs. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess long-term 5-year outcomes following acetabular distraction across 2 institutions. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent revision THA in which the acetabular distraction technique was performed for the treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity between 2002 and 2018. Demographic, operative, and clinical postoperative data were collected. Clinical endpoints included postoperative radiographic outcomes, complications requiring additional surgery, and reoperation for all causes. Only patients who had a minimum 5-year follow-up were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (Paprosky IIC: one patient, 6.7%; Paprosky IIIA: 5 patients, 33.3%; Paprosky IIIB: 9 patients, 60%) who had a mean follow-up time of 9 years (range, 5.1 to 13.5) were analyzed. Porous tantalum augments were used in 11 (73.3%) cases to primarily address posteriorsuperior defects (100%). There were 4 (26.7%) patients that required reoperation, only 2 of which were for indications related to the acetabular construct, leading to an overall survivorship of 86.7%. Both patients had a prior revision THA before the implementation of the distraction technique. Evidence of bridging callus formation was reported radiographically for 14 (93.3%) patients at the time of the last clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who have chronic pelvic discontinuity, acetabular distraction shows promising long-term outcomes. Even so, larger multi-center studies are needed to better support the efficacy of this technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The global population, especially in the Western world, is constantly aging and the need for total hip arthroplasties has rocketed, hence there has been a notable increase in revision total hip arthroplasty cases. As time has passed, a considerable developments in science and medicine have been attained which have also resulted in the evolution of both surgical techniques and implants. Continuous improvements have allowed large bore bearings to be utilized which provide an increased range of motion, with ameliorated stability and a very low rate of wear. The trend for almost the last two decades has been the employment of porous tantalum acetabular cups. Several studies exist comparing them with other conventional methods for total hip arthroplasties, exhibiting promising short and midterm results. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and a Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used to identify published studies in a comprehensive search up to February 2023, and these studies were reviewed by the authors of the article. Specific rigorous pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria and were involved in the systematic review. Sixteen studies examined postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of using a tantalum cup in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, whilst four biomechanical studies proved the superiority of tantalum acetabular components. Five articles provided a thorough comparison between tantalum and titanium acetabular cups, while the other studies analyzed long-terms results and complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Porous tantalum acetabular cups appear to be a valuable option in revision total hip arthroplasty, providing clinical improvement, radiological stability, and promising long-term outcomes. However, ongoing research, longer follow-up periods, and careful consideration of patient factors are essential to further validate and refine the use of tantalum in various clinical scenarios.

Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement: a narrative literature review.

Background and Objective: Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion. Methods: In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods. Key Content and Findings: Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants. Conclusions: There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods.

AAHKS Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Inferior Screw Fixation Decreases Acetabular Component Failure Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive screw fixation has been shown to be reliable in achieving acetabular component stability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of inferior screw placement on acetabular component failure following revision THA. We hypothesized that inferior screw fixation would decrease acetabular failure rates. METHODS: We reviewed 250 patients who had Paprosky Type II or III defects who underwent acetabular revision between 2001 and 2021 across three institutions. Demographic factors, the number of screws, location of screw placement (superior versus inferior), use of augments and/or cup-cage constructs, Paprosky classification, and presence of discontinuity were documented. Multivariate regression was performed to identify the independent effect of inferior screw fixation on the primary outcome of aseptic rerevision of the acetabular component. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 53.4 months (range, 12 to 261), 16 patients (6.4%) required re-revision for acetabular loosening. There were 140 patients (56.0%) who had inferior screw fixation, all of whom did not have neurovascular complications during screw placement. Patients who had inferior screws had a lower rate of acetabular rerevision than those who only had superior screw fixation (2.1 versus 11.8%, P = .0030). Multivariate regression demonstrates that inferior screw fixation decreased the likelihood of rerevision for acetabular loosening when compared to superior screw fixation alone (odds ratio: 0.1, confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.5; P = .0071). No other risk factors were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior screw fixation is a safe and reliable technique to reduce acetabular component failure following revision THA in cases of severe acetabular bone loss.

Hip joint center lateralization minimally affects the biomechanics of patient-specific flanged acetabular components: A computational model.

Patient-specific flanged acetabular components are utilized to treat failed total hip arthroplasties with large acetabular defects. Previous clinical studies from our institution showed that these implants tend to lateralize the acetabular center of rotation. However, the clinical impact of lateralization on implant survivorship is debated. Our goal was to develop a finite element model to quantify how lateralization of the native hip center affects periprosthetic strain and implant-bone micromotion distributions in a static level gait loading condition. To build the model, we computationally created a superomedial acetabular defect in a computed tomography 3D reconstruction of a native pelvis and designed a flanged acetabular implant to address this simulated bone defect. We modeled two implants, one with ~1 cm and a second with ~2 cm of hip center lateralization. We applied the maximum hip contact force and corresponding abductor force observed during level gait. The resulting strains were compared to bone fatigue strength (0.3% strain) and the micromotions were compared to the threshold for bone ingrowth (20 µm). Overall, the model demonstrated that the additional lateralization only slightly increased the area of bone at risk of failure and decreased the areas compatible with bone ingrowth. This computational study of patient-specific acetabular implants establishes the utility of our modeling approach. Further refinement will yield a model that can explore a multitude of variables and could be used to develop a biomechanically-based acetabular bone loss classification system to guide the development of patient-specific implants in the treatment of large acetabular bone defects.

What's New in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) is one of the most common indications for reoperation following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS/RESULTS: This article provides a review of a symposium on PFF that was presented at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons 2023 annual meeting, including an overview of the Vancouver classification and its implications on treatment and subsequent complications, an updated approach to the management of intraoperative fractures, and finally, contemporary strategies for both osteosynthesis as well as revision arthroplasty for PFFs. CONCLUSION: As the incidence of PPF continues to increase, arthroplasty and trauma surgeons must be prepared to address this challenging complication with a contemporary understanding of the treatment options and their outcomes.

Inpatient Hospital Costs, Emergency Department Visits, and Readmissions for Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tremendously burden hospital resources. This study evaluated factors influencing perioperative costs, including emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and total costs-of-care within 90 days following revision surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 772 revision TKAs and THAs performed on 630 subjects at a single center between January 2007 and December 2019 was conducted. Cost data were available from January 2015 to December 2019 for 277 patients. Factors examined included comorbidities, demographic information, preoperative Anesthesia Society of Anesthesiologists score, implant selection, and operative indication using mixed-effects linear regression models. RESULTS: Among 772 revisions (425 THAs and 347 TKAs), 213 patients required an ED visit, and 90 required hospital readmission within 90 days. There were 22.6% of patients who underwent a second procedure after their initial revision. Liver disease was a significant predictor of ED readmission for THA patients (multivariable odds ratio [OR]: 3.473, P = .001), while aseptic loosening, osteolysis, or instability significantly reduced the odds of readmission for TKA patients (OR: 0.368, P = .014). In terms of ED visits, liver disease increased the odds for THA patients (OR: 1.845, P = .100), and aseptic loosening, osteolysis, or instability decreased the odds for TKA patients (OR: 0.223, P < .001). Increased age was associated with increased costs in both THA and TKA patients, with significant cost factors including congestive heart failure for TKA patients (OR: $7,308.17, P = .004) and kidney disease for THA patients. Revision surgeries took longer than primary ones, with TKA averaging 3.0 hours (1.6 times longer) and THA 2.8 hours (1.5 times longer). CONCLUSIONS: Liver disease increases ED readmission risk in revision THA, while aseptic loosening, osteolysis, or instability decreases it in revision TKA. Increased age and congestive heart failure are associated with increased costs. These findings inform postoperative care and resource allocation in revision arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis, Level IV.