Re-revision total hip arthroplasty: Epidemiology and factors associated with outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The epidemiology of re-revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not yet well-understood. We aim to investigate the epidemiology and risk-factors that are associated with re-revision THA. METHODS: 288 revision THA were analyzed between 1/2012 and 12/2013. Patients who underwent two or greater revision THA were included. Hips with first-revision due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) were excluded. Failure was defined as reoperation. RESULTS: 51 re-revision patients were available. Mean age was 59.6 (±14.2 years), 32 (67%) females, average BMI of 28.8 (±5.4), and median ASA 2 (23; 55%). The most common re-revision indications were acetabular component loosening (15; 29%), PJI (13; 25%) and instability (9; 18%). The most common indications for first revision in the re-revision population were acetabular component loosening (11; 27%), polyethylene wear (8; 19%) and instability (8; 19%). There was an increased risk of re-revision failure if the re-revision involved exchanging only the head and polyethylene liner (RR = 1.792; p = 0.017), instability was the first-revision indication (RR = 3.000; p < 0.001), and instability was the re-revision indication (RR = 1.867; p = 0.038). If isolated femoral component revision was indicated during the re-revision, there was a decreased risk of failure (RR = 0.268, p = 0.046). 1-year re-revision survival was 54% (23/43). DISCUSSION: Acetabular component loosening, instability, and PJI were the most common indications for re-revision. Revision due to instability is a recurrent problem that leads to re-revision failure. There was a higher infection rate in the re-revision population compared to published revision PJI. A better understanding of the indications and patient factors that are associated with re-revision failures can help align surgeon and patient expectations in this challenging population.

Large diameter heads: is bigger always better?

Large femoral heads have been used with increasing frequency over the last decade. The prime reason is likely the effect of large heads on stability. The larger head neck ratio, combined with the increased jump distance of larger heads result in a greater arc of impingement free motion, and greater resistance to dislocation in a provocative position. Multiple studies have demonstrated clear clinical efficacy in diminishing dislocation rates with the use of large femoral heads. With crosslinked polyethylene, wear has been shown to be equivalent between larger and smaller heads. However, the stability advantages of increasing diameter beyond 38 mm have not been clearly demonstrated. More importantly, recent data implicates large heads in the increasing prevalence of groin pain and psoas impingement. There are clear benefits with larger femoral head diameters, but the advantages of diameters beyond 38 mm have not yet been demonstrated clinically.