The rise of the anterior approach (AA) in primary surgery has led to enthusiasm for using this approach in revision surgery, especially because head and liner exchanges have been accompanied by a high dislocation rate when the posterior approach (PA) is used. The aim of this study was to compare the institutional dislocation rate comparing the PA and AA in isolated head and liner exchange. A retrospective institutional database query was done to identify all aseptic head and liner exchanges between the years 2010- June, 2020. 186 hips were identified with an average age of 64.8+/−10.8 yrs (27.9–87.6) and average BMI of 28.7+/−6.3 kg/m2 (16.2–52). The reason for revision was polyethylene wear and osteolysis in 105 hips (56.5%), adverse tissue reaction to metal on metal (MOM) in 43 hips (23.1%), and recurrent instability in 38 hips (20.4%). The approach used for the revision surgery was PA in 128 hips (68.8%) and AA in 58 hips (31.2%). The mean follow-up for this cohort is 1.9±2 yrs (0.0–8.6).Introduction
Methods
The purpose of this study is to examine six types of bearing surfaces implanted at a single institution over three decades to determine whether the reasons for revision vary among the groups and how long it takes to identify differences in survival. We considered six cohorts that included a total of 1,707 primary hips done between 1982 and 2010. These included 223 conventional polyethylene sterilized with γ irradiation in air (CPE-GA), 114 conventional polyethylene sterilized with gas plasma (CPE-GP), 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 1,083 metal-on-metal (MOM), 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC), and 81 surface arthroplasties (SAs). With the exception of the COC, all other groups used cobalt-chromium (CoCr) femoral heads. The mean follow-up was 10 (0.008 to 35) years. Descriptive statistics with revisions per 100 component years (re/100 yr) and survival analysis with revision for any reason as the endpoint were used to compare bearing surfaces.Aims
Methods
