AimsThe purpose of this study was to directly compare the Modular Dual Mobility (MDM) Mobile Bearing Hip System (Stryker, USA) and large femoral heads (LFHs) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) at mid-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on survival free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, dislocation, and the risk of metal-related complications.MethodsWe identified 299 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from March 2011 to July 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n = 65), dislocation (n = 58), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n = 57) were the most common reasons for index revision. MDM constructs were used in 123 cases, and LFHs were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years (28 to 93), mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 (18 to 55), and 45% (n = 136) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 12).ResultsThe ten-year survival free of re-revision for dislocation was 99% (95% CI 95 to 100) in the MDM cohort and 91% (95% CI 84 to 96) in the LFH cohort, with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 7.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 40.8); p = 0.023). The ten-year survival free of any re-revision was 92% (95% CI 82 to 99%) in the MDM cohort and 84% (95% CI 74 to 90) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.9); p = 0.024). The ten-year survival free of any dislocation was 95% (95% CI 85 to 99) in the MDM cohort and 87% (95% CI 78 to 92) in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.3); p = 0.028). There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.ConclusionIn this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs with a MDM construct safely and effectively lowered the risk of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and any dislocation compared to LFH at mid-term follow-up. There were no re-revisions or reoperations for metallosis or corrosion in the MDM cohort.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):58–64.
Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular Fluted Tapered Stems
Background: Modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components are frequently utilized in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, long-term follow-up has been limited. The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at long-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on implant survivorship, radiographic results, and complications in a large cohort of aseptic revision THAs using MFT stems. Methods: We retrospectively identified 515 aseptic femoral revisions performed with 2 MFT stem designs in the total joint registry of a single tertiary care academic institution from 1999 to 2013. Serial radiographs were reviewed for subsidence of >5 mm. The mean follow-up (and standard deviation) was 10 ± 5 years (range, 2 to 21 years). A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized. Results: The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 12%. There were 57 revisions, 27 of which involved revision of the fluted tapered component (FTC). Dislocation (n = 19), periprosthetic joint infection (n = 15), and aseptic loosening of the FTC (n = 11) were the most common reasons for revision. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 16%. The 15-year cumulative incidences were 6% for any FTC revision and 2% for FTC revision for aseptic loosening. Stem subsidence of >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all but 1 stem was stable at the most recent follow-up. Conclusions: This large series of MFT stems used in aseptic revision THAs had a 2% incidence of subsequent revision of the FTC for aseptic loosening at 15 years. Dislocation and infection were the most common reasons for any revision. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
3D-Printed Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties
Background: Porous metaphyseal cones are frequently utilized during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate 3D-printed metaphyseal cones used for revision TKA, with specific emphasis on implant survivorship, radiographic appearance, and clinical outcomes after short-term follow-up. Methods: We identified 740 cones (498 tibial, 242 femoral) that had been inserted during 533 revision TKA procedures that had been performed at a single tertiary care academic institution. Aseptic loosening (n = 199), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 183), and instability (n = 84) were the most common reasons for the index revision. Type-2B or 3 bone loss was present in 67% of the knees. The mean age was 66 years, the mean body mass index was 34 kg/m 2 , and 55% of the patients were female. Serial radiographs were reviewed. The mean duration of follow-up was 4 years. Results: The 5-year cumulative incidence of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 3%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of any cone revision or removal was 6% (95% CI, 4% to 9%). In total, 37 cones (19 femoral, 18 tibial) were revised, with PJI (n = 23; 14 recurrent), periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 3), arthrofibrosis (n = 3), and aseptic loosening of the femoral component and femoral cone (n = 3) as the most common reasons for cone revision. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any TKA re-revision was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 18%). There were a total of 67 re-revisions, with PJI (n = 38), persistent drainage (n = 6), and extensor mechanism disruption (n = 3) being the most common reasons. Radiographically, 2 unrevised femoral cones and 1 unrevised tibial cone appeared to be possibly loose; all 3 cones were in knees with distal femoral replacements or hinged constructs. Conclusions: This large series showed that 3D-printed titanium metaphyseal cones were very durable at short-term follow-up, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. PJI was the most common reason for cone revision and any revision. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Modular fluted tapered stems in two-stage reimplantation of previously infected total hip arthroplasties
AimsUncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants – modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components – in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.MethodsWe identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from September 2000 to September 2020. Two designs of MFT femoral components were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 7), and 46% (n = 109) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (SD 4). A competing risk model accounting for death was used.ResultsThe 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n = 25) and infection (n = 16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only two FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence ≥ 5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases. All stems were radiologically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Score was 69 (SD 20) at most recent follow-up.ConclusionThis series demonstrated that MFT components were durable and reliable in the setting of two-stage reimplantation THA for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily due to dislocation and recurrent PJI.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):125–132.
Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age
Background: There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure. Methods: We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years. Results: In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively. Conclusions: Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Marlex Mesh Reconstruction of the Extensor Mechanism
Marlex mesh reconstruction of the extensor mechanism following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has demonstrated excellent early results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate longer-term results of Marlex mesh reconstruction of the extensor mechanism in 93 TKAs. Seventy-seven reconstructions were aseptic, and 16 were performed as part of a 2-stage exchange for the treatment of infection. Mean follow-up was 8 years. Twenty-eighty patients experienced mesh failure. Seventeen failures were treated with mesh revision (8 for patellar tendon rupture, 7 for quadriceps tendon rupture, and 2 for symptomatic lengthening). The 10-year cumulative incidence of mesh revision for mesh failure was 20%. Extensor lag improved by a mean of 28°, with a mean extensor lag of 9° at most recent follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 8 years, Marlex mesh reconstruction was a durable and reliable technique to treat both aseptic and septic ruptures of the extensor mechanism. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Analysis of New Orthopaedic Technologies in Large Database Research
Abstract: Improvements in orthopaedic surgery go hand in hand with technological advances. The present article outlines the historical and current uses of large databases and registries for the evaluation of new orthopaedic technologies, providing insights for future utilization, with robotic-assisted surgery as the example technology.