Search

Background: Both dual-mobility (DM) constructs and large femoral head bearings (⩾36 mm) reduce dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is limited research comparing DM with large bearings. Methods: A systematic review of published literature was performed including studies that compared DM with large femoral head bearings in primary or revision THA according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was revision surgery for dislocation. The secondary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Other complications were recorded. 2 authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Treatment effects were assessed using odds ratios and data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, where appropriate. Results: 9 studies, all retrospective, met the final inclusion criteria. 2722 patients received DM and 9,789 large femoral head bearings. The difference in the odds of revision surgery for dislocation (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45–1.01; p = 0.06) and aseptic loosening are unclear (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36–1.05; p = 0.07); including important benefits and no difference. There was a benefit favouring DM for the risk of all-cause revision (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.86; p = 0.001), revision for fracture (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.81; p = 0.005) and dislocation not requiring revision (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14–0.57; p < 0.001). The estimate in the difference in the odds of revision surgery for infection was imprecise (OR 0.78; 95% CI, 05.1–1.20; p = 0.26). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that there may be clinically relevant benefits of DM constructs over large femoral head bearings. Prospective randomised studies are warranted given these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dislocation is one of the most common causes of a re-revision after a revision THA. Dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (≥ 36 mm) are known options for mitigating this risk. However, it is unknown which of these choices is better for reducing the risk of dislocation and all-cause re-revision surgery. It is also unknown whether there is a difference between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings according to the size of the acetabular component.Questions/purposes: We used data from a large national registry to ask: In patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis, (1) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for prosthesis dislocation differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (2) Does the proportion of re-revision surgery for all aseptic causes differ between revision THAs performed with dual-mobility constructs and those performed with large femoral head bearings? (3) Is there a difference when the results are stratified by acetabular component size?Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for 1295 first-revision THAs for aseptic causes after a primary THA performed for osteoarthritis. The study period was from January 2008-when the first dual-mobility prosthesis was recorded-to December 2019. There were 502 dual-mobility constructs and 793 large femoral head bearings. There was a larger percentage of women in the dual-mobility construct group (67% [334 of 502]) compared with the large femoral head bearing group (51% [402 of 793]), but this was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. Patient ages were similar for the dual-mobility construct group (67 ± 11 years) and the large femoral head group (65 ± 12 years). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and BMI distributions were similar. The mean follow-up was shorter for dual-mobility constructs at 2 ± 1.8 years compared with 4 ± 2.9 years for large femoral head bearings. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for a diagnosis of prosthesis dislocation as well as for all aseptic causes (excluding infection). Procedures using metal-on-metal bearings were excluded. The time to the re-revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or database closure at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 5 years for dual-mobility constructs and for each of the first 9 years for large femoral head bearings, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The apparent shorter follow-up of the dual-mobility construct group relates to the more recent increase in dual-mobility numbers recorded in the registry. The results were adjusted for age, gender, and femoral fixation. Results were subanalyzed for acetabular component sizes < 58 mm and ≥ 58 mm, set a priori on the basis of biomechanical and other registry data.Results: There was no difference in the proportion of re-revision for prosthesis dislocation between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (hazard ratio 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.12]; p = 0.49). At 5 years, the CPR of the re-revision for prosthesis dislocation was 4.0% for dual mobility constructs (95% CI 2.3% to 6.8%) and 4.1% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 2.7% to 6.1%). There was no difference in the proportion of all aseptic-cause second revisions between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.37]; p = 0.89). At 5 years, the CPR of dual-mobility constructs was 17.6% for all aseptic-cause second revision (95% CI 12.6% to 24.3%) and 17.8% for large femoral head bearings (95% CI 14.9% to 21.2%). When stratified by acetabular component sizes less than 58 mm and at least 58 mm, there was no difference in the re-revision CPR for dislocation or for all aseptic causes between dual-mobility constructs and large femoral head bearings.Conclusion: Either dual-mobility constructs or large femoral head bearings can be used in revision THA, regardless of acetabular component size, as they did not differ in terms of re-revision rates for dislocation and all aseptic causes in this registry study. Longer term follow-up is required to assess whether complications develop with either implant or whether a difference in revision rates becomes apparent. Ongoing follow-up and comparison in a registry format would seem the best way to compare long-term complications and revision rates. Future studies should also compare surgeon factors and whether they influence decision-making between prosthesis options and second revision rates. Nested randomized controlled trials in national registries would seem a viable option for future research.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: THA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known.Questions/purposes: In patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery?Methods: Data were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years.Results: When adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point.Conclusion: The Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A number of surgical approaches are available for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there are limited large-volume, multi-surgeon data comparing the rates of early revisions following these approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of revision of primary conventional THA related to surgical approach.Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were analyzed for all patients who had undergone a primary THA for osteoarthritis from January 2015 to December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes. Secondary outcome measures were major revision (a revision procedure requiring change of the acetabular and/or femoral component) and revision for specific diagnoses: fracture, component loosening, infection, and dislocation. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, femoral head size, and femoral fixation were assessed as potential confounders.Results: There was a total of 122,345 primary conventional THAs for which the surgical approach was recorded in the registry; 65,791 were posterior, 24,468 were lateral, and 32,086 were anterior. There was no difference in the overall CPR among approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of major revisions. There were differences among the approaches with regard to the types of revision. When adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI, femoral head size, and femoral fixation, the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of femoral complications-i.e., revision for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening. There was a lower rate of revision for infection after the anterior approach compared with the posterior approach in the entire period, and compared with the lateral approach in the first 3 months. The posterior approach was associated with a higher rate of revision for dislocation compared with both the anterior and the lateral approach in all time periods. The anterior approach was associated with a lower rate of revision compared with the lateral approach in the first 6 months only.Conclusions: There was no difference in the overall early CPR among the surgical approaches, but the anterior approach was associated with a higher rate of early major revisions and femoral complications (revisions for periprosthetic fracture and femoral loosening) compared with the posterior and lateral approaches and with a lower rate of dislocation and infection.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]