Kevin R. Steelman MD, Thomas G. Cheslik MD, Cody C. Green MD, George J. Haidukewych MD
{"title":"Constrained Liners During Acetabular Revision: Clinical Results of an Impingement Avoidance Strategy","authors":"Kevin R. Steelman MD, Thomas G. Cheslik MD, Cody C. Green MD, George J. Haidukewych MD","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a challenging problem. Component revision or bearing exchange can be successful; however, constraints may be necessary. This study evaluated the results of revision THA for instability that required constrained liners (CLs) to determine whether revising or retaining the acetabular component is preferred.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-surgeon retrospective study included 50 consecutive patients who required a CL during acetabular revision for instability. Indications for constraint included the absence of functioning abductors and failed previous CL or dual mobility liner. A CL was used in existing cups if the cup position was deemed acceptable with a reasonable impingement-free arc of motion. If unacceptable, it was revised, or, if the internal diameter allowed, a CL was cemented into the existing cup in a “face changing” position to minimize impingement. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability occurred in 15 of 50 patients overall (30%). Results were analyzed, and patients were separated into the following two groups based on whether the cup/liner position was changed: group 1, cup revision or cemented CL with “face change” (FC) (n = 28), and group 2, CL implanted into existing cup without FC (n = 22).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Group 1 had recurrent instability in four of 28 cases (14%), whereas group 2 had instability in 11 of 22 (50%) cases (<em>P</em> = 0.012). Cemented liners with FC failed in four of 16 cases. Cup revision had the lowest rate of recurrent instability (zero of 12) versus 15 of 38 (39%) when the cup was retained (<em>P</em> = 0.01).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study demonstrated significantly lower rates of recurrent instability when CLs can be positioned to minimize impingement, either by revising the cup or cementing the liner independent of the existing cup: a so-called “FC.” Cup revision demonstrated the lowest rate of recurrent instability with predictable osteointegration at the mean 4-year follow-up.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":"40 8","pages":"Pages S285-S290"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540325002657","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a challenging problem. Component revision or bearing exchange can be successful; however, constraints may be necessary. This study evaluated the results of revision THA for instability that required constrained liners (CLs) to determine whether revising or retaining the acetabular component is preferred.
Methods
This single-surgeon retrospective study included 50 consecutive patients who required a CL during acetabular revision for instability. Indications for constraint included the absence of functioning abductors and failed previous CL or dual mobility liner. A CL was used in existing cups if the cup position was deemed acceptable with a reasonable impingement-free arc of motion. If unacceptable, it was revised, or, if the internal diameter allowed, a CL was cemented into the existing cup in a “face changing” position to minimize impingement. All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability occurred in 15 of 50 patients overall (30%). Results were analyzed, and patients were separated into the following two groups based on whether the cup/liner position was changed: group 1, cup revision or cemented CL with “face change” (FC) (n = 28), and group 2, CL implanted into existing cup without FC (n = 22).
Results
Group 1 had recurrent instability in four of 28 cases (14%), whereas group 2 had instability in 11 of 22 (50%) cases (P = 0.012). Cemented liners with FC failed in four of 16 cases. Cup revision had the lowest rate of recurrent instability (zero of 12) versus 15 of 38 (39%) when the cup was retained (P = 0.01).
Conclusions
This study demonstrated significantly lower rates of recurrent instability when CLs can be positioned to minimize impingement, either by revising the cup or cementing the liner independent of the existing cup: a so-called “FC.” Cup revision demonstrated the lowest rate of recurrent instability with predictable osteointegration at the mean 4-year follow-up.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.