Abstract

Background

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging scenario following complex primary THA for developmental dysplasia of hip (DDH). This study envisages the long-term outcomes of revision DDH and the role of lateral structural support in socket fixation in these young patients who may require multiple revisions in their life-time.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging scenario following complex primary THA for developmental dysplasia of hip (DDH). Our study envisages the long-term outcomes of revision DDH and the role of lateral structural support in socket fixation in these young patients who may require multiple revisions in their life-time.

Hundred and eighteen consecutive cemented revision THAs with minimum follow up of 5 years following primary diagnosis of DDH operated between January 1974 and December 2012 were analysed for their clinical and radiological outcomes.

The mean follow-up of 118 patients was 11.0 years (5.1–39.6 years). The Kaplan Mier survivorship at 11 years with end point as revision for any reason was 89.8% (CI 81.1–98.4). Of 118 revisions, 88 acetabular revisions were for aseptic loosening. Out of the acetabular revisions, 21 had pre-existing structural bone grafts from primary surgery, of which only 3 needed structural re-grafting during revision. Amongst the remaining 18 hips, the lateral support from the previous graft facilitated revision with no requirement of additional structural graft. Sixty-three hips did not have any form of grafting during primary operation. Amongst them, 35 had bone grafting in revision surgery (18 structural grafting).

This study reports the largest number of revision THAs with primary diagnosis of DDH with the longest follow up. In our experience, the lateral support from the structural graft done in primary operation appears to have provided benefit in subsequent revision socket fixation.

Introduction: Revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening of femoral component is successfully treated with impaction bone grafting technique. Owing to easier technique and shorter operative time, distally fixed non-cemented long stems have gained popularity in the present era. However, use of long stems could make subsequent re-revision difficult due to further bone loss. The standard length stem has been often critiqued due to apprehension of peri-prosthetic fracture.

This study aims to determine the long-term outcomes of the impaction bone grafting of the femur for aseptic loosening in revision hip arthroplasty using standard length C-stems. 168 total hip revisions of 162 patients with impaction bone grafting and cemented standard C-stem (done with standardized technique) between 1995 and 2008 at a tertiary referral centre were included. Revisions for infection and segmental bone defects were excluded.

Mean follow-up of the 168 revision hips was 10.5 years (range 5 – 19.1 years). 14 patients (8.3%) were re-revised, reasons being, persistent deep infection (1.8%), repeated dislocations (1.2%), cup loosening (4.8%) and stem loosening (1.2%). Only 1 patient (0.6%) was re-revised due to stem loosening alone. No peri-prosthetic fractures (intra-operative or post-operative) or stem breakage were identified.

Use of standard stem length in hip revisions with impaction bone grafting does not increase the risk of peri-prosthetic fractures, instead, reconstitutes the bone stock. This questions the conventional principle of bypassing the distal cavitation of femur by 2 cortical diameters with the use of long stem. In our experience, a good proximal femur support is key to performance of standard length cemented stems in revision for aseptic loosening irrespective of grade of distal cavitation for cavitatory defects of femur when treated with impaction bone grafting.

Introduction

Osteosynthesis to conserve femoral head following neck of femur (NOF) fractures has reported failure rates of 36 to 47% at 2 years. However, the long-term outcomes of THAs performed for failed osteosynthesis is yet to be elucidated. This study aims to report on long term outcome of primary THAs post failed osteosynthesis for NOF fracture.

Prosthetic joint infection continues to remain a diagnostic challenge for unhappy primary arthroplasty of hip and knees. There is increasing dependence upon alpha-defensin test to make key decisions like whether to revise or not & to decide between one-stage versus two-stage.

Background

One of the major concerns of hinge knees have been reported in literature is mechanical failure. Failure in the form of component fracture (2–10%) and hinge dislocation/ failure are worrisome. In addition, higher risk of aseptic loosening with hinge knee prosthesis has been attributed to stress transfer at bone cement interface.

In patients with primary hip replacement for previous infective arthritis the risk of recurrence of infection is of major concern. In addition, the safe time interval post infective arthritis for primary hip replacement is not known.

Clinical & radiological results of consecutive series of 80 primary hip replacements performed for septic / tuberculous arthritis at Wrightington hospital from 1970 to 2008. Data was collected till latest follow up. Re-infection or revision for any reason was considered as primary end point for survivorship.

Average age at primary hip replacement was 55.55 years (24 – 75). Mean follow up was 14.47 years (2–41). Twelve patients in septic hip group (n=42) needed revision out of which 6 (14%) were for infection. The survival rate for recent septic arthritis group (<10 years) was 60% at 7.5 years, whereas in old septic arthritis group (>10 years) it was 94.45% at 15.3 years, considering infection as end point. The survival rate was 60% for recent septic arthritis and 78.13% for old septic arthritis group over the same period of time considering revision for any reason as end point. In tuberculous group (n=38), the survival rate was 76.32% at 14.5 years of follow up, considering revision for any reason as end point.

Significantly high re-infection rate in patients with recent septic arthritis was noted. No recurrence of infection in patients with old septic arthritis. No reactivation of tuberculosis in tuberculous arthritis group.

This is the largest series with longest follow-up on primary total hip replacement for infective arthritis till date. Recent septic arthritis (<10Y) was a statistically high risk factor for recurrence of infection. Old septic arthritis is reasonably safe with 94.45% success rate at 15 years follow up. Old tuberculous arthritis is not a risk factor for hip replacement

The choice of stem length in total hip revision with impaction bone grafting of femur is essentially based upon the grade of cavitation of femur and surgeon's preference. The standard length stem has been often critiqued for the apprehension of peri-prosthetic fracture. Our study highlights the importance of proximal bone stock rather than distal cavitation in determining the length of femoral stem.

168 total hip revisions of 162 patients with impaction bone grafting and cemented standard C-stem (done with standardized technique) between 1995 and 2008 at a tertiary referral centre were included. Revisions for infection and segmental bone defects were excluded. Serial radiographs were retrospectively analysed by two people independently, using Endoklinik classification, Gruen zones and more and outcomes were analysed.

Mean follow-up of the 168 revision hips was 10.5 years (range 5 – 19.1 years). 14 patients (8.3%) were re-revised, reasons being, persistent deep infection (1.8%), repeated dislocations (1.2%), cup loosening (4.8%) and stem loosening (1.2%). Only 1 patient (0.6%) was re-revised due to stem loosening alone. No peri-prosthetic fractures or stem breakage were identified.

Use of standard stem length in hip revisions with impaction bone grafting doesn't increase the risk of peri-prosthetic fractures even during long term follow up period. This questions the principle of bypassing the distal cavitation of femur by 2 cortical diameters with the use of long stem. In our experience, a good proximal femur support aids in the performance of standard length cemented stems in revision for aseptic loosening irrespective of grade of distal cavitation for cavitory defects of femur treated with impaction bone grafting.

Introduction

Limb Length discrepancy after total hip replacement has been reported to happen in 1–27% of cases with differences up to 70mm. Occasionally revision THR has been used to achieve limb length equalisation, especially when patients are symptomatic with hip/back pain, neurologic symptoms or instability. However, in presence of a well-functioning, pain free hip without hip symptoms, revision THR for shortening can lead to problems with decrease in offset or stability. An option in these cases would be a distal shortening osteotomy of femur.

Patients with a history of septic arthritis or tuberculosis (TB) of the hip frequently develop secondary osteoarthritis (OA). These patients present a challenge for having joint replacement because of abnormal bone development, the possibility of re-infection, soft tissue problems and their life-style (more active than patients with old age arthritis). We retrospectively review a decent group of 55 cases where one stage cemented total hip arthroplasty was performed with history of old hip infection by a team of surgeons at Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire, UK from 1970 to 2008. The purpose of this study is to find the survival analysis with revision (for infection) as the end stage. There are 33 females and 22 males aged from 25 to 75 yrs (mean 52 years). 21 patients had proven or probable tuberculous infection, 29 had the past history of old septic hip, and the remaining 5 had recent septic hip (i.e., less than 5 years). The patients are followed for between 1 to 23 years (mean 10 years). Pre-operatively, 25 patients had arthrodesis while 24 patients had moderate to severe secondary OA. 3 patients had dysplastic acetabulum, 2 patients had shallow acetabulum and 1 had Avascular Necrosis (AVN). In 33 cases, intra-operative tissue samples didn’t grow any organism, 2 samples grew Staphylococcus aureus, 2 samples grew Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus (CNS), 1 grew pseudomonas, samples were not sent in 9 cases, laboratory did not process the sample in 1 case and no documentation found in 3 cases. Cement with antibiotics was used in 45 patients (Gentamicin alone in 37 cases, Gentamicin and Vancomycin in 3 cases, Gentamicin, Fucidic Acid and Eryth-romycin in 2 patients, Gentamicin, Vacncomycin and Streptomycin in 1 patient, Gentamicin and Streptomycin in 1 case and Gentamicin, Vacncomycin and Amoxycillin in 1 patient). Mostly intravenous antibiotics (3 doses of Cefuroxime) were given, but in few cases with old TB, anti-tuberculous treatment was started pre-operatively and continued for 3 months post-op. In 16 patients either antibiotics were not given or not documented to be given. Failure happened in 2 cases of positive intra-op sample culture with Staphylococcus aureus, 1 patient with pre-op aspiration which showed pseudomonas and in 2 cases where tissue sample showed no growth. 8 patients had revision of at least one of the components for aseptic loosening. The 2 failed cases with positive culture with Staphylococcus aureus had post operative antibiotics and extra antibiotics in cement. Both cases had early wound healing issues.

Conclusion: We can conclude that total hip arthroplasty is safe in old cases of septic or tuberculous hips, provided appropriate antibiotic cover. We have some evidence that total hip replacement can be carried out in cases of recent infection of hip but level of evidence is not very great as we don’t have a large sample of such patients.

Background: Since Sir John Charnley introduced bio-clean air operating techniques such as the “body exhausting” system and a bio-clean air operating theatre to reduce the risk of infection3), total hip replacement has become one of the safest and most successful procedures in orthopaedic surgery and has benefited numerous people suffering from arthritis all over the world. However, deep infection is still undoubtedly one of the most serious complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is still controversial whether one or two stage revision should be indicated for deeply infected hip replacement.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify the influential factors in one stage revision THA for deep infection with a long-term follow-up.

Methods: One stage revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 273 joints on 262 patients by the senior author between 1974 and 2000. All infected hip replacements were primarily treated with one stage revision THA regardless of micro organisms at the authors’ unit as far as sufficient bone stock for socket fixation was available in the acetabulum. This study included 162 revisions in 154 patients for which a minimum follow-up of five years (range 5 to 28 years; average 12.3 years) had been done. Fifty-two cases (32.1 %) had had discharging sinus by the time of revision surgery for infection.

Results: One hundred and thirty eight (85.2 %) hips were free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Twenty cases (12.3 %) had reoperation for recurrent infection. Four hips (2.5 %) maintained their implants with the evidence of infection. Twenty-two cases (13.6 %) showed radiological loosening. Thirteen cases (8.0 %) were revised again for reasons other than infection (12 for aseptic loosening and one for dislocation). Bone stock did not have significant influence on infection control while it did affect mechanical outcome. The cement-bone interface was an affecting factor for not only the mechanical survival of implants but also the cure of infection. Neither discharging sinus nor gram-negative microorganism was considered as a contraindication.

Conclusion: This study presented the longest follow-up with a large number of cases in revision THA for deep infection. The results suggested that shielding medullary space with antibiotic-loaded cement was important for treatment of infected THA.

One of the most serious complications of THA is deep infection.

Charnley realised the problem. This led to the development of clean air enclosure, total body exhaust suits and the introduction of the instrument tray system. Subsequently antibiotics were used both systematically and also as an addition to the acrylic cement. Occasional deep infection requires further intervention, either by removing the implant, or performing one or two stage revision. It has been the senior author’s practice to undertake one-stage revision provided the bone stock was of sufficiently good quality to ensure reasonable quality of component fixation. The technique is based on the accepted principle of infection management: Removal of all foreign body material and infected tissues, application of local antiseptics/antibiotics, closure of cavities, ensuring stability, drainage, rest, continuation of antibiotics.

Between January 1974 and December 2001, 185 one-stage revisions were carried out by the senior author: 162 had a minimum follow-up of 5 years with a mean of 12.3 years (5.1–27.6 years). 138 cases (85.2%) were free from infection. Presence of a sinus at revision did not affect the outcome adversely – on the contrary – 90.4% were infection free as compared with 82.7% of those without a sinus.

Attention to detail was the essential part of the operation.

Background: Since Sir John Charnley introduced bio-clean air operating techniques such as the “body exhausting” system and a bio-clean air operating theatre to reduce the risk of infection 3), total hip replacement has become one of the safest and most successful procedures in orthopaedic surgery and has benefited numerous people suffering from arthritis all over the world. However, deep infection is still undoubtedly one of the most serious complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is still controversial whether one or two stage revision should be indicated for deeply infected hip replacement.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify the influential factors in one stage revision THA for deep infection with a long-term follow-up.

Methods: One stage revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 273 joints on 262 patients by the senior author between 1974 and 2000. All infected hip replacements were primarily treated with one stage revision THA regardless of micro organisms at the authors’ unit as far as sufficient bone stock for socket fixation was available in the acetabulum. This study included 162 revisions in 154 patients for which a minimum follow-up of five years (range 5 to 28 years; average 12.3 years) had been done. Fifty-two cases (32.1 %) had had discharging sinus by the time of revision surgery for infection.

Results: One hundred and thirty eight (85.2 %) hips were free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Twenty cases (12.3 %) had reoperation for recurrent infection. Four hips (2.5 %) maintained their implants with the evidence of infection. Twenty-two cases (13.6 %) showed radiological loosening. Thirteen cases (8.0 %) were revised again for reasons other than infection (12 for aseptic loosening and one for dislocation). Bone stock did not have significant influence on infection control while it did affect mechanical outcome. The cement-bone interface was an affecting factor for not only the mechanical survival of implants but also the cure of infection. Neither discharging sinus nor gram-negative microorganism was considered as a contraindication.

Conclusion: This study presented the longest follow-up with a large number of cases in revision THA for deep infection. The results suggested that shielding medullary space with antibiotic-loaded cement was important for treatment of infected THA.

Introduction: The tribiological properties of bearing surfaces are one of the main topics in discussion in the orthopaedic research. Hard-on-hard bearings are one of the ways to reduce wear rates. Modern hard-on-hard bearing low wear rates depend on the correct pairing of bearing surfaces and strict manufacturing tolerances in surface roughness, clearance, and roundness.

There have been some concerns in using ceramic bearings, particularly regarding the fracture rate and their subsequent management. Hence, we present here 2 similar cases that highlight the catastrophic failure of metal head when used subsequently to treat the complication of ceramic fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA).

Case Details: Two patients underwent primary THA at different centres with ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. After an initial asymptomatic period of 2 years, ceramic fracture occurred in both the cases, which were subsequently replaced by metal-on-polyethylene bearings by the primary surgeons. One year after the revision of bearings, both the patients developed severe pain and discomfort, which on further investigation revealed massive metallosis, wear of the metal head and aseptic loosening of the acetabular components with cavitation in acetabulum.

Both the patients underwent revision THA under the senior author at our tertiary centre-Wrightington Hospital. Intraoperatively near total erosion of the metal head was noted with more than one litre of black, dense material collection in and around the hip joint revealing extensive metallosis. The acetabular cup was grossly loose and significant loss of bone stock was noted due to metallosis.

Single stage revision surgery was performed with impaction bone grafting for deficient acetabulum and cemented components were used. At one-year follow-up none of the cases have shown any further wear or complications.

Conclusion: One of the main objectives of successful THA is to improve implant longevity. To achieve this understanding the mechanisms of wear between the interacting surfaces is extremely important. The use of ceramic head is good, but there is always a risk of fracture. We do not recommend using metal heads in cases with prior ceramic fractures, as the wear of metal is most likely to occur as it is an ongoing process due to the residual ceramic debris. Hence in these difficult scenarios we recommend usage of ceramic-on-polyethylene as a safe option to prevent catastrophic erosion of metal head and improve implant longevity.

Introduction: Bone stock and cement-bone interface in revision total hip replacement (THR) for deep infection have never been investigated in the literature, while they are known to be important for aseptic loosening. The purpose of this study was to assess preoperative bone stock and immediate postoperative cement-bone interface as factors affecting infection control and mechanical outcome after revision THR for deep infection.

Methods: This study included 115 cases in which revision THR with antibiotic-loaded cement was operated for infected hip replacement by a single surgeon with minimal follow-up of five years (range 5–27 years). Preoperative bone stock was classified into four grades (Grade 0: No bone loss, Grade 1: Demarcation, Grade 2: Localized cavitation, Grade 3: Extensive bone loss). The immediate postoperative cement-bone interface was also graded into four categories (Grade A: White-out, obscure interface, Grade B: Clear line, no measurable gap, Grade C: Gap> 1mm, Grade D< 1mm). These two factors were analysed with regard to infection control and mechanical survival of implants after surgery.

Results: Bone stock did not have significant influence on infection control while it affected mechanical outcome. The cement-bone interface was an affecting factor for not only the mechanical survival of implants but also the cure of infection.

Discussion: There was a good chance of curing the infection even with extensive bone loss. Good cement fixation was an important factor with regard to infection control as well as the mechanical survival of implants. The results suggested that it might be important to shield the medullary space from the infected joint space with antibiotic-loaded cement.

Factors influencing the results of revised cemented sockets with bone grafting have been studied in 249 cases.

Freeze-dried allografts in 77 and fresh frozen in 172 cases have been used. The average follow-up was 8 years 11 months for the freeze-dried group and 2 years 11 months for the fresh frozen cases. There were 13 postoperative dislocations, 20 TNU, 4 thromboembolic complications, 4 delayed wound healing and 2 intraoperative fractures of the acetabulum. There have been 11 re-revisions: 8 for aseptic loosening, 2 for dislocation and 1 for infection. Radiographic evidence of loosening was seen in another 38 cases.

The acetabular bone stock at the time of revision and initial stability of socket fixation had a significant influence on the outcome. Direction of socket migration before surgery appeared to predict risk of failure. The primary pathology, type of bone graft and grafting technique also had an effect.

Introduction and Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of one stage revision THA for deep infection with a long-term follow-up.

Method: One stage revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 273 joints on 262 patients by the senior author between 1974 and 2000. All infected hip replacements were primarily treated with one stage revision THA, regardless of microorganisms at the authors’ unit unless bone stock in the hips was too poor for implant fixation. This study included 162 revisions in 154 patients for which a minimum follow-up of five years (range 5.1 to 27.6 years; average 12.3 years) had been done. Fifty-two cases (32.1 %) had had discharging sinus by the time of revision surgery for infection.

Results: One hundred and thirty eight (85.2 %) hips were free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Twenty cases (12.3 %) had reoperation for recurrent infection. Four hips (2.5%) maintained their implants with the evidence of infection. Twenty-two cases (13.6 %) showed radiological loosening. Thirteen cases (8.0 %) were revised again for reasons other than infection (12 for aseptic loosening and one for dislocation).

Conclusion: Deep infection is one of the most serious complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study presented the longest follow-up, with a large number of cases in revision THA for deep infection. The results suggested that one stage revision was an effective treatment for deep infection of hip arthroplasty.

Introduction and Aims: The purpose of this study was to assess pre-operative bone stock and immediate postoperative cement-bone interface as factors affecting infection control and mechanical outcome after one stage revision THR for deep infection.

Method: This study included 115 cases which satisfied the following conditions: 1) One stage revision THR for deep infection was the primary intervention for infected hip replacement by a single surgeon (BMW) unless the bone stock was too poor for fixing implants; 2) follow-up of more than five years; 3) A complete series of radiographs was available for radiological study including pre-operative and immediate post-operative ones. Pre-operative bone stock was classified into four grades (Grade 0: No bone loss, Grade 1: Demarcation, Grade 2: Localised cavitation, Grade 3: Extensive bone loss). The immediate post-operative cement-bone interface was also graded into four categories (Grade A: White-out, obscure interface, Grade B: Clear line, no measurable gap, Grade C: Gap> 1mm, Grade D< 1mm). These two factors were analysed with regard to infection control and the mechanical survival of implants after surgery.

Results: Bone stock did not have significant influence on infection control, while it did affect mechanical outcome. The cement-bone interface was an affecting factor for not only the mechanical survival of implants but also the cure of infection.

Conclusion: There was a good chance of curing the infection even with extensive bone loss. Good cement fixation was an important factor with regard to infection control, as well as the mechanical survival of implants. The results suggested that it was important to shield the medullary space from the infected joint space with antibiotic-loaded cement in revision THR for deep infection.

Background: Dislocation after total hip replacement (THR) is a significant concern with the increased number of THR carried out all over the world, although there has been a substantial lack of information regarding revision THR for instability in literature.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of operative treatment for recurrent dislocation after THR.

Material and methods: One hundred and eleven cases were treated operatively for recurrent dislocation after THR by a senior author (BMW). Group A; 104 cases were operated with change of either or both of components, a socket and a stem. Twenty-two mm head was used in 90 cases (A-1), 32 mm head in twelve (A-2), and 36 mm head in two (A-3). Group B; only modular head was changed in one case. Group C; augmentation device was applied on a cup in six cases. The average follow-up period was 6.2 years (range, 1 to 21 years).

Results: Group A-1; twelve cases (13%) required further operations for instability (N=90). Group A-2; one case (8.3%) was converted to Girdle-Stone for recurrent dislocation (N=12). Group A-3; one of them was revised for periprosthetic fracture (N=2). Group B; the case survived at the follow-up of 3.3 years (N=1). Group C; two cases (33%) were revised for dislocation (N=6).

Conclusion: We reported the largest series of revision THR for recurrent dislocation by a single surgeon with a considerable length of follow-up periods. Revision THR with change of components was an effective treatment for recurrent dislocation after THR.