Christian Klemt1, Wenhao Chen1, Georges Bounajem1, Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala1, Liang Xiong1, Young-Min Kwon2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ymkwon@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.
INTRODUCTION: Recurrent dislocation represents the third most common cause of revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a paucity of information on the outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. In this study, we investigated (1) clinical outcomes of patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and (2) potential risk factors associated with treatment failure in patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 211 consecutive cases of revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation, 81 implanted with a constrained liner and 130 with a non-constrained liner with a large-diameter femoral head (> 32 mm). Patient- and implant-related risk factors were analyzed in multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: At 4.6-year follow-up, 32 of 211 patients (15.1%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common causes for re-revision included infection (14 patients) and dislocation (10 patients). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrates a 5-year survival probability of 77% for patients that underwent revision THA for recurrent dislocation. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40), spine disease and abductor deficiency are independent risk factors for failure of revision surgery for recurrent dislocation. Liner type (constrained vs. non-constrained) was found not to be associated with failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation (p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that THA revision for recurrent dislocation is associated with a high re-revision rate of 15% at mid-term follow-up. Osteoporosis, obesity (BMI ≥ 40) spine disease and abductor deficiency were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for failure of revision THA for recurrent dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.
Authors: Azeem T Malik; Nikhil Jain; Thomas J Scharschmidt; Mengnai Li; Andrew H Glassman; Safdar N Khan Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Bayard C Carlson; Nicholas M Desy; Joshua D Johnson; Robert T Trousdale; Michael Leunig; Reinhold Ganz; Rafael J Sierra Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ameer M Elbuluk; Francesca R Coxe; Gregory V Schimizzi; Amar S Ranawat; Mathias P Bostrom; Rafael J Sierra; Peter K Sculco Journal: JBJS Rev Date: 2020-01
Authors: D Dammerer; F Schneider; T Renkawitz; D Putzer; M Bogensperger; R Biedermann Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 3.067