Hernandez, Nicholas M.

Aims Modular dual mobility (MDM) acetabular components are often used with the aim of reducing the risk of dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, little information in the literature about its use in this context. The aim of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the outcomes in a cohort of patients in whom MDM components were used at revision THA, with a mean follow-up of more than five years. Methods Using the database of a single academic centre, 126 revision THAs in 117 patients using a single design of an MDM acetabular component were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 94 revision THAs in 88 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.5 years were included in the study. Survivorship was analyzed with the endpoints of dislocation, reoperation for dislocation, acetabular revision for aseptic loosening, and acetabular revision for any reason. The secondary endpoints were surgical complications and the radiological outcome. Results The overall rate of dislocation was 11%, with a six-year survival of 91%. Reoperation for dislocation was performed in seven patients (7%), with a six-year survival of 94%. The dislocations were early (at a mean of 33 days) in six patients, and late (at a mean of 4.3 years) in four patients. There were three intraprosthetic dissociations. An outer head diameter of ≥ 48 mm was associated with a lower risk of dislocation (p = 0.013). Lumbrosacral fusion was associated with increased dislocation (p = 0.004). Four revision THAs (4%) were further revised for aseptic acetabular loosening, and severe bone loss (Paprosky III) at the time of the initial revision was significantly associated with further revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (p = 0.008). Fourteen acetabular components (15%) were re-revised for infection, and a pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was associated with subsequent PJI (p < 0.001). Two THAs had visible metallic changes on the backside of the cobalt chromium liner. Conclusion When using this MDM component in revision THA, at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a higher rate of dislocation (11%) than previously reported. The size of the outer bearing was related to the risk of dislocation. There was a low rate of aseptic acetabular loosening. Longer follow-up of this MDM component and evaluation of other designs are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):66–72.

AimsTibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years.MethodsA retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review.ResultsThe rate of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 6.5%, with an eight-year survival of 95%. Significant bone loss (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute grade 3) was associated with cone revision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.002). The rate of cone revision for any reason was 17.7%, with an eight-year survival of 84%. Sixteen percent of knees developed PJI following revision. A pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol for infection was associated with both PJI (p < 0.001) and tibial cone revision (p = 0.001).ConclusionMid-term results of tibial cones showed a survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 95%. Patients with significant bone loss were more likely to have re-revision for tibial cone failure. Infection was common, and patients receiving cones at reimplantation were more likely to develop PJI and undergo cone revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):158–164.

Background: Povidone-iodine (PI) irrigation is often used prior to wound closure in total joint arthroplasty, but there are limited reports evaluating its efficacy in decreasing joint infections. The goal of this study was to compare the rate of any reoperation for infection (both superficial and deep) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among patients who did and did not receive PI irrigation prior to wound closure. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 5,534 primary THA and 6,204 primary TKA procedures performed from 2013 to 2017. Cases were grouped on the basis of whether or not the wound was irrigated with 1 L of 0.25% PI prior to closure. PI irrigation was used in 1,322 (24%) of the THA cases and in 2,410 (39%) of the TKA cases. The rates of reoperation for infection at 3 months and 1 year were compared between the 2 groups. The same comparisons were then performed using propensity scores to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The rate of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months following THA was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.9%) and who did not (0.7%) (p = 0.7). At 1 year, the rate of reoperation for infection was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.7%) and those who did not (0.9%) (p = 0.6). After using the propensity score, there was no difference between the groups in the risk of septic reoperations. For TKA, the rate of reoperation as assessed at 3 months was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.8%) and those who did not (0.3%) (p = 0.06). At 1 year, there was a greater rate of reoperations for infection among those who received dilute PI irrigation (1.2%) compared with those who did not (0.6%) (p = 0.03). However, there was no difference in the risk of septic reoperations between the groups after using the propensity score. Conclusions: Despite enthusiasm for and progressive adoption of the use of dilute PI irrigation at our institution, there was not a significant reduction in the risk of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months and 1 year following primary THA and TKA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Postoperative infection remains a major challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Wound irrigation with dilute povidone-iodine (PI) solution has emerged as a simple, inexpensive, and potentially successful means of reducing postoperative infections. The aim of this study was to assess its effectiveness in reducing infection following revision THA and TKA in, to our knowledge, the largest revision cohort to date. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 1,402 revision THAs and 1,482 revision TKAs performed during the study period (2013, when the PI irrigation protocol was first implemented, to 2017). The PI lavage protocol was employed in 27% of the revision THA cases and 34% of the revision TKA cases; in the remaining cases, the protocol was not used. Demographics, comorbid conditions, underlying surgical diagnoses, and whether the revision was for a septic or an aseptic etiology were compared between the groups (use or no use of PI irrigation). Any reoperation due to infection, as assessed at 3 and 12 months following revision arthroplasty, was compared between the groups and propensity scores were calculated to account for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Results: After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups using the propensity-score weighted models, we found no significant difference in the rate of reoperation for infection at 3 months (p = 0.58 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA) and at 12 months (p = 0.78 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA). Nonetheless, the hazard ratios from the propensity-score model trended higher for patients who received PI lavage: 1.6 and 1.3 for revision THA at 3 and 12 months, respectively, and 2.9 at both 3 and 12 months for revision TKA. Conclusions: PI wound lavage demonstrated no benefit in reducing any reoperation for infection following revision THA and TKA. Moreover, the trend toward higher rates for reoperation for infection among patients who received PI irrigation merit further consideration. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.