Abstract
Failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) can require novel designs of revision implants that present unique risks as well as benefits. One of our patients endured a series of hip and knee revisions. In her twenties, she experienced a failed THA, became infected and all implants removed. In her early fifties (2008), she had a proximal femoral replacement incorporating a FreedomTM cup (Biomet, Warsaw, IN). She lacked hip musculature, was a dislocation risk, and cup constraint was necessary. Our choice of Freedom cup provided a 36mm head for enhanced stability and range-of-motion, plus the polyethylene liner was not as encompassing as other constrained designs, and the external clamping ring came pre-installed. This unique design allows for ease of head insertion during surgery. Our patient also had a CompressTM fixator combined knee-arthroplasty (Biomet). This knee fixation failed in 2013 and we installed a total femur combined hinge-knee arthroplasty. The Freedom cup was kept and post-op results were satisfactory.
Follow-up appeared satisfactory in 2014. Some liner eccentricity was apparent but the patient had no complaints. Radiographs in February 2016 indicated cup's locking-mechanism was possibly failing but patient had no complaints. By December follow-up of 2016, the patient claimed she had 3 falls, and her x-rays indicated a displaced head and dislodged liner. At revision, the liner appeared well-seated inside the acetabular shell. However, about 50% of the polyethylene rim was missing and the large detached circumferential fragment represented the other 50%. A new Freedom liner was installed and her follow-up appears satisfactory to date.
The fractured liner was sectioned through the thinnest wall (under detached rim fragment). The most critical design section was at site of the external locking ring, this wall thickness appearing < 3mm, whereas eccentric cup dome was 7.5–8mm thick. Under the detached rim fragment, wall thickness had been reduced (in vivo) to < 1mm. Given the robust rim profile, it seemed unlikely that the liner could have been spinning. The more likely scenario was that with repeated impingement, attempted subluxations by the femoral head stressed the contra- polyethylene rim, resulting in cold flow, thinning, and rim fragmentation. Two exemplar liners were compared, one similar to our patient's and one in a thicker design. Comparison of the sectioned retrieval to the new liners confirmed major loss of circumferential polyethylene.
Our learning experience was threefold; (i) if we had been aware of the thin wall limitation, possibly we could have inserted the thicker liner (larger shell), (ii) we could have been more alert to the impending liner failure (x- ray imaging), and (iii) positioning the cup in a more horizontal orientation may have been an alternate solution, i.e. more coverage (but perhaps more impingement). Use of a 32mm head would have facilitated a thicker liner but this option was unavailable. In conclusion, it was notable that this constrained liner functioned very well for 7 years in our complex case and was easily revised at 8 years to another Freedom liner.
