HIP International最新文献

Introduction: The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Comparisons of surgical approach based on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been limited to short- to mid-term outcomes or the comparison of only 2 approaches. The aim of this study was to compare PROMs for the 3 main approaches for THA with up to 10 years follow-up.

Methods: A total of 906 patients who underwent primary THA at a single hospital between 2009 and 2020 through an anterior (312), lateral (211) or posterior (383) approach were evaluated using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQoL-5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analogue scale/verbal rating scale for pain (VAS/VRS). PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and routinely at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after surgery.

Results: There was no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities between the 3 groups. All 3 approaches resulted in a significant improvement in overall PROMs after THA, and plateaued after 6 months postoperatively, with no difference between the approaches (OHS, p < 0.01;EQ-5D-5L Index, p < 0.01;VAS/VRS, p < 0.01). The EQ-5D-5L mobility dimension showed that the lateral approach resulted in 20% more patients reporting problems with mobility than the posterior and anterior approaches at the 6-week, 6-month, 2-year and 10-year follow-up.

Conclusions: This study shows that all 3 common THA approaches substantially and similarly improve the OHS, EQ-5D-5L Index and VRS between 6 months and 10 years postoperatively. However, patient-reported mobility was poorer after a lateral approach and continued to be so at long-term follow-up.

Purpose: Modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasties allow diaphyseal fixation and optimal restoration of the architecture of the proximal femur. Several studies report metaphyseal implant breakage having a negative impact on survivorship. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of an uncemented modular fluted tapered stem (MFT) in revision surgery.

Methods: In a retrospective study, 316 patients who had revision surgery using the same design of MFT implant (Modular Revision Stem [MRS], Lima Corporate, Italy) between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Patients were male in 51% of cases and mean age was 74 years. Indications were 110 periprosthetic fractures, 98 periprosthetic joint infection, 97 aseptic loosening, 10 instability and 1 other cause. Survivorship, complications, clinical and radiographic outcomes, were assessed. Mean follow-up was 5 years.

Results: There was no implant breakage. At 5-year follow-up, the survivorship, free from revision for aseptic loosening and free of revision for any reason were 96% and 87%, respectively. At last follow-up (8 years), these figures were 92% and 71%, respectively. 31 implants were revised. The risk of revision for any cause was higher for extreme length metaphyseal implants, hazard ratio was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.82-7.52). A mean stem subsidence of 9 mm was noted in 37 cases; 4 were revised for aseptic loosening. The Harris Hip Score at final follow-up was 82.

Conclusions: At 5-year follow-up, the MFT implant showed a good survivorship and outcomes with no specific complications. Unlike literature reports, no specific complications occurred with this design. Stem junction positioning and therefore metaphyseal length may be key to optimise long-term survivorship. However, a longer follow-up is needed as implant breakage is more often seen after long implantation times.

Background: The primary purpose of this retrospective case series was to describe the prevalence and outcomes of single-stage hip arthroplasty in patients who were previously treated for septic arthritis of the native hip at our institution over a 20-year period. This study also examined rates of persistent or recurrent infection, reoperation, and mortality for septic arthritis of the native hip.

Methods: Adult patients treated for septic arthritis of the native hip at our institution from 1995 to 2015 were retrospectively identified. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, missing or incomplete medical records, treatment at an outside institution, and prior surgery of the hip.

Results: 97 patients were included in this study. 3 patients (3.1%) who were previously treated for septic arthritis of the native hip underwent single-stage hip arthroplasty an average of 40 ± 25 months from the date of infection. 3 of the 18 (16.7%) patients who were treated with resection arthroplasty underwent second-stage joint reconstruction. There were no cases of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). 1 patient who underwent single-stage arthroplasty experienced implant-induced metallosis, necessitating removal of the implant. There were no other cases of revision arthroplasty.

Conclusions: The prevalence of single-stage hip arthroplasty in patients with a history of septic arthritis of the native hip joint was 3.1%, which is higher than the prevalence of hip arthroplasty in the United States general population, suggesting that a history of septic arthritis may increase the risk of requiring hip arthroplasty. In the small number of patients who went on to receive a hip replacement, there were no reported cases of PJI. This study suggests that hip arthroplasty is a viable option for patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis and a history of septic arthritis of their hip.

Background and aim: Several studies reported osteolysis around polyethylene glycol/polybutylene terephthalate (PEG/PBT) based femoral cement restrictors. Our goal was to evaluate and compare osteolysis around 3 different plug designs: the slow biodegradable PEG/PBT cement restrictor; the fast biodegradable gelatin cement restrictor; and the non-biodegradable polyethylene plug.

Patients and methods: In a retrospective multicentre cohort study chart data were extracted of patients who received a total hip arthroplasty between 2008 and 2012. A total of 961 hips were included. Cortical ratio between inner and outer cortices at the centre of the plug was measured on routine postoperative follow-up moments. Median follow up of all 3 hospitals was 3.5 years (1.4-7.3). The primary outcome was evidence of osteolysis (i.e. the difference in cortical ratio [CR]) on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs at final follow-up.

Results: Progressive osteolysis was found around the PEG/PBT cement restrictor represented by a significantly increasing cortical ratio (ΔCR 0.067 (95% CI, 0.063-0.071). Distance from tip prosthesis to plug and size of the plug were found to be independent factors in predicting increased cortical ratio.

Conclusions: Our multicentre cohort shows increase of cortical ratio around the PEG/PBT cement restrictor which progresses over time. Physicians should be aware of this fact and are advised to intensify follow-up of patients who received this cement restrictor.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to determine the restoration of hip biomechanics through lateral offset, leg length, and acetabular component position when comparing non-arthroplasty surgeons (NAS) to elective arthroplasty surgeons (EAS).

Methods: 131 patients, with a femoral neck fracture treated with a THA by 7 EAS and 20 NAS, were retrospectively reviewed. 2 blinded observers measured leg-length discrepancy, femoral offset, and acetabular component position. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the association between the surgeon groups and restoration of lateral femoral, acetabular offset, leg length discrepancy, acetabular anteversion, acetabular position, and component size, while adjusting for surgical approach and spinal pathology.

Results: NAS under-restored 4.8 mm of lateral femoral offset (43.9 ± 8.7 mm) after THA when compared to the uninjured side (48.7 ± 7.1 mm, p = 0.044). NAS were at risk for under-restoring lateral femoral offset when compared to EAS (p = 0.040). There was no association between lateral acetabular offset, leg length, acetabular position, or component size and surgeon type.

Conclusions: Lateral femoral offset is at risk for under-restoration after THA for femoral neck fractures, when performed by surgeons that do not regularly perform elective THA. This indicates that lateral femoral offset is an under-appreciated contributor to hip instability when performing THA for a femoral neck fracture. Lateral femoral offset deserves as much attention and awareness as acetabular component position since a secondary analysis of our data reveal that preoperative templating and intraoperative imaging did not prevent under-restoration.

Introduction: As recent studies demonstrate an ongoing debate surrounding outcomes and complications with respect to different total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may provide valuable information for clinician and patient decision-making. Therefore, our systematic review aimed to assess how surgical approach influences patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: 5 online databases were queried for all studies published between January 1, 1997 and March 4, 2022 that reported on PROMs across various surgical approaches to THA. Studies reporting on PROMs in primary THA patients segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, hip resurfacing, and arthroscopy were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilised to calculate the pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs).

Results: No differences between the DAA and other approaches were observed when evaluating HOOS (MD -0.28; 95% CI, -1.98-1.41; p = 0.74), HHS (MD 2.38; 95% CI, -0.27-5.03; p = 0.08), OHS (MD 1.35; 95% CI, -2.00-4.71; p = 0.43), FJS-12 (MD 5.88; 95% CI, -0.36-12.12; p = 0.06), VAS-pain (MD -0.32; 95% CI, -0.68-0.04; p = 0.08), and WOMAC-pain (MD -0.73; 95% CI, -3.85-2.39; p = 0.65) scores. WOMAC (MD 2.47; 95% CI, 0.54-4.40; p = 0.01) and EQ-5D Index (MD 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; p = 0.002) scores were found to significantly favour the DAA cohort over the other approaches. Only the EQ-5D index score remained significant following sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: Superiority of any 1 approach could not be concluded based on the mixed findings of the present analysis. Although our pooled analysis found no significant differences in outcomes except for those measured by the EQ-5D index, a few additional metrics, notably the WOMAC, HHS, FJS-12, and VAS-pain scores, leaned in favour of the DAA.

Purpose: A "floating hip" (FH) injury is a rare injury describing the simultaneous ipsilateral fracture of the femur and pelvis or acetabulum (P/A). We describe our experience with patients presenting with FH injuries and compare them to controls with similar P/A fractures but without femoral involvement.

Methods: Medical records and radiographs of FH patients and controls presenting to our tertiary centre between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. Follow-up data from outpatient clinical records were also extracted. The control group were extensively matched by age, sex, body mass index, fracture classification and energy of injury.

Results: From 1392 recorded P/A fractures, 42 FH cases were identified (average age 39 years, 78.6% males). The most common femoral fracture was the midshaft (35.7%), followed by the neck of femur (26.2%). 90.5% of FH injuries were due to high-energy mechanisms. 64.3% of P/A fractures, and 100% of femoral fractures were managed surgically. Compared to controls, FH cases were more likely to have additional orthopaedic injuries (73.8% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.002), more total theatre admissions (mean 2.5 vs. 1.19, p < 0.001), longer hospital stays (28.3 vs. 14.9 days, p = 0.02), and a higher rates of post-op complications (53.8% vs. 20%, p = 0.025).

Conclusions: We report differences in the presentation, management, and outcomes of FH injuries versus controls, even after extensive matching for confounders. These differences may inform future treatment strategies for the FH injury.

Background: Early cup migration after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to late revision due to aseptic loosening. However, the use of screws for increased cup stability remains unclear and debated. The purpose of this study is to assess acetabular migration between cups fixated with and without the use of screws.

Methods: Patients underwent primary THA using either a direct anterior (DA) or a direct lateral (DL) approach. The DA surgeon routinely supplemented cup fixation with 1 or 2 screws while the DL surgeon used no screws. At 7 follow-up visits up to 2 years post operation, patients underwent radiostereometric analysis (RSA) imaging for implant migration tracking. The primary outcome was defined as proximal cup migration measured with model-based RSA.

Results: 68 patients were assessed up to 2 years post operation, n = 43 received screws and n = 25 did not. The use of screws had a significant effect on cup migration (p = 0.018). From 2 weeks to 2 years post operation, the total mean migration was 0.403 ± 0.681 mm and 0.129 ± 0.272 mm (p = 0.319) for cups with and without screws, respectively. The number of screws used also had a significant impact, with cups fixated with 1 screw migrating more than cups fixated with 2 (p = 0.013, mean difference 0.712 mm).

Conclusions: Acetabular cups fixated with only 1 screw resulted in greater migration than cups with no screws or 2 screws, though the mean magnitude was well under the 1.0 mm threshold for unacceptable migration. However, 3 of the 24 patients who received only 1 screw exceeded the 1.0 mm threshold for unacceptable migration. Ultimately, the results of this study show that the use of 2 screws to supplement cup fixation can provide good implant stability that is equivalent to a secure press-fit component with no screws.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03558217).

Introduction: The relationship between implant type, dual mobility (DM) or fixed bearing (FB), and postoperative groin pain remains unexplored. We examined the incidence of groin pain in DM implants and compare this to a cohort of FB THA patients.

Methods: From 2006 to 2018, a single surgeon performed 875 DM THA and 856 FB THA procedures with 2.8-year and 3.1-year follow-up, respectively. Each patient received a questionnaire postoperatively and was asked if they had any groin pain (yes/no). Secondary measurements were implant characteristics such as head size, head offset, cup size, and cup-to-head ratio. Additional PROMs that were collected included: Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, Pain visual analogue scale (Pain VAS), and range of motion (ROM).

Results: The incidence of groin pain was 2.3% in the DM THA cohort and 6.3% in the FB THA group (p < 0.001). Also, low head offset (⩽0 mm) had a significant odds ratio (1.61) for groin pain in both cohorts. There was no significant difference in terms of revision rate between the cohorts (2.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.39) at the latest follow up.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated a lower incidence of groin pain (2.3%) in patients with a DM bearing compared to a FB (6.3%) and a greater risk of groin pain with low head offset (<0 mm). As such, surgeons should try to recreate offset of the hip compared to the contralateral side to avoid groin pain.