Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Intermediate Resection Arthroplasty Is Safe for Use in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

Background: This study sought to compare the results of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients with and without the use of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) for removal of a well-fixed femoral stem or cement. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had undergone an ETO as part of a two-stage revision without spacer placement were matched 1:2 with a cohort of sixty-four patients of the same sex and age who had stem removal without any osteotomy. Clinical outcomes including interim revision, reinfection and aseptic failure rates were evaluated. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Minimum follow-up was two years. Results: Patients undergoing ETO had a significantly lower rate of interim re-debridement compared to non-ETO patients (0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.026). Reinfection following reimplantation was similar in both groups (12.5% in ETO patients vs. 9.4% in non-ETO patients, p = 0.365). Revision for aseptic reason was necessary in 12.5% in the ETO group and 14.1% in the non-ETO group (p = 0.833). Periprosthetic femoral fractures were seen in three patients (3.1%), of which all occurred in non-ETO patients. Dislocation was the most common complication, which was equally distributed in both groups (12.5%). The mean mHHS was 37.7 in the ETO group and 37.3 in the non-ETO group, and these scores improved significantly in both groups following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusion: ETO without the use of spacer is a safe and effective method to manage patients with well-fixed femoral stems and for thorough cement removal in two-stage revision THA for PJI. While it might reduce the rate of repeated debridement in the interim period, the use of ETO appears to lead to similar reinfection rates following reimplantation.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Background Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords. Results In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores. Conclusion PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

Femoral Head and Liner Exchange in Patients with Atraumatic Dislocation. Results of a Retrospective Study with 6 Years Follow-Up

Background and Objectives: Femoral head and liner exchange is an established treatment for polyethylene wear but has had a more limited role in the treatment of other conditions including dislocation, because of concerns about an increased postoperative dislocation rate. Some authors have considered dislocation associated with polyethylene wear to be a contraindication for this procedure. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective review evaluated the outcome of head and liner exchange in a small consecutively operated heterogeneous cohort of 20 patients who presented with dislocation unrelated to trauma, component malposition or component loosening. Of this group, 12 had prior primary total hip arthroplasty, and 8 had prior revision total hip arthroplasty, and included 4 patients with prior revision for dislocation. Mean follow-up was 6 ± 3.5 years (range 1–145 months). Results: Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed a revision-free implant survival from any cause of 80% (confidence interval 95%:64.3–99.6%) at 5 years after head and liner exchange (index surgery). At final follow-up, 83.3% of patients (n = 10) with prior primary total hip arthroplasty and 62.5% of patients (n = 5) with prior revision total hip arthroplasty, had not required subsequent revision for any cause. None (0%) of the primary total hip arthroplasty group and 3 (38%) of the revision arthroplasty group had required revision for further dislocation. Of the eight revision arthroplasty patients, four had a prior revision for dislocation and three of these four patients required further revision for dislocation after index surgery. The fourth patient had no dislocation after index surgery. One additional patient who had prior revision surgery for femoral component fracture suffered dislocation after index surgery, but was successfully treated with closed reduction. Conclusions: In our study population, femoral head and liner exchange was an effective treatment option for patients with prior primary total hip arthroplasty and also for a highly select group of revision total arthroplasty patients with no prior history of dislocation. Femoral head and liner exchange does not appear to be a viable treatment option for patients who have had revision total arthroplasty after prior dislocations.

Pseudotumor Associated with Dall-Miles Cable Breakage Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report

A pseudotumor is a benign granulomatous or cystic lesion associated with the deposition of metal debris in joint arthroplasties. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on a pseudotumor caused by the breakage of the Dall-Miles cable grip system, a multifilament cable used to fix the trochanteric osteotomy in revision total hip arthroplasty. This rare case demonstrates that pseudotumor formation can be caused by various types of orthopedic materials and implant components. When encountering a palpable mass around an orthopedic implant, a pseudotumor should be considered along other differential diagnoses. To treat pseudotumors and also prevent recurrence, its complete resection and sufficient removal of orthopedic materials are necessary.