Sierra, Rafael J

AimsDual-mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a rare complication of DM that is believed to have decreased with contemporary implants. This study aimed to report incidence, treatment, and outcomes of contemporary DM IPD.MethodsA total of 1,453 DM components were implanted at a single academic institution between January 2010 and December 2021: 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. Of these, 49 presented with a dislocation of the large DM head and five presented with an IPD. At the time of closed reduction of the large DM dislocation, six additional IPDs occurred. The mean age was 64 years (SD 9.6), 54.5% were female (n = 6), and mean follow-up was 4.2 years (SD 1.8). Of the 11 IPDs, seven had a history of instability, five had abductor insufficiency, four had prior lumbar fusion, and two were conversions for failed fracture management.ResultsThe incidence of IPD was 0.76%. Of the 11 IPDs, ten were missed either at presentation or after attempted reduction. All ten patients with a missed IPD were discharged with a presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was three weeks (0 to 23). One patient died after IPD prior to revision. Of the ten remaining hips with IPD, the DM head was exchanged in two, four underwent acetabular revision with DM exchange, and four were revised to a constrained liner. Of these, five (50%) underwent reoperation at a mean 1.8 years (SD 0.73), including one additional acetabular revision. No patients who underwent initial acetabular revision for IPD treatment required subsequent reoperation.ConclusionThe overall rate of IPD was low at 0.76%. It is essential to identify an IPD on radiographs as the majority were missed at presentation or after iatrogenic dissociation. Surgeons should consider acetabular revision for IPD to allow conversion to a larger DM head, and take care to remove impinging structures that may increase the risk of subsequent failure.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):98–104.

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.

Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a reliable procedure to treat medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). The reported survivorship of UKA has varied in the literature 3–7 . In part, the higher failure rates of UKA seen in registries could be related to the caseload and experience of the reporting surgeon 8 . The introduction of techniques that make procedures more reliable, especially in the hands of inexperienced surgeons, can decrease the rate of failure. With the Oxford UKA implant (Zimmer Biomet), the recommended surgical technique involves cutting the tibia first, followed by the femoral preparation. However, a technique that allows for preparation of the femur first, as well as the use of the femoral component as a reference for the tibial cut, may reduce the common technical errors seen with the procedure. We have utilized the femur-first technique in cases of medial Oxford UKA. Description: The femur-first method outlined in the present article does not require any unique instruments beyond what is supplied by the manufacturer. Before beginning, the femoral positional guide needs to be decoupled from its base. To start, the intramedullary guide is introduced approximately 1 cm anterior and medial to the intercondylar notch. Once the femoral osteophytes are removed, the surgeon identifies the center of the femoral condyle and marks it. The posterior tibial cartilage is then removed with a saw to facilitate the placement of the appropriately sized femoral spherical guide. The size of the femoral component is determined by selecting the implant that aligns best with the width of the femoral condyle. The femoral drill guide is detached from its base because there is not enough space for the base, as the tibia has not yet been resected. The decoupled femoral guide is connected to the intramedullary rod, allowing the precise positioning of the femoral component in approximately 10° of flexion relative to the femoral sagittal plane and drilling of the 2 peg holes. The posterior condylar resection guide is impacted into position, and the osteotomy of the posterior condyle is made. The distal femur is then milled with use of a number-0 spigot, and the femoral component trial is positioned into place. The femoral condyle is “resurfaced” with the femoral component, which restores joint obliquity and the natural height, a critical element of the femur-first technique. Following this, the 1-mm (size-dependent) spherical gauge is placed around the femoral component trial. The tibial guide is secured with the G-clamp and a number-0 resection block, and is pinned into place. We recommend swapping the number-0 cutting guide for a +2 when making the cut in order to avoid over-resection. Recutting is advised if a minimum 3-mm feeler gauge does not adequately occupy the flexion space. The final step is to balance the flexion and extension gaps in the usual fashion. Alternatives: The alternative technique is a traditional tibia-first approach, in which tibial resection is performed prior to femoral resection. As described in the original manufacturer’s manual, the tibial cut is accomplished with use of a number-0 cutting guide, and the tibial rotation is based on the axis formed by the anterior superior iliac spine and knee center, irrespective of the femoral condyle. Rationale: The femur-first technique is advantageous in several ways. When performing the femoral cut first, the surgeon can better align the drill guide at the center of medial femoral condyle. This will result in the femoral component being positioned more in line with the coronal plane of the femoral condyle. Additionally, the tibial resection is made with the femoral trial in place; therefore, the depth of resection can be more accurate, potentially avoiding excessive bone resection. Finally, with the femoral trial in place, the surgeon can judge the rotation and medial-lateral position of the tibial component more precisely, hence lowering the possibility of bearing spin-out, impingement, and dislocation or unexplained pain. Expected Outcomes: The femur-first technique is a bone-preserving procedure that results in thinner bearings when compared with a tibia-first approach 1 . The femur-first approach also improves radiographic outcomes, including femoral coronal, femoral sagittal, and tibial sagittal alignments, while tibial coronal alignment does not differ. There is an early trend toward improved 5-year survivorship with the femur-first (98%) versus tibia-first (94%, p = 0.35) techniques. There has been no significant difference reported in Knee Society Scores between techniques. Important Tips: Perform a preliminary cut of the posterior tibial cartilage in order to allow insertion of the femoral drill guide under the femoral condyle. Make sure the femoral drill guide lies in the center of the marked medial femoral condyle. Align the tibial sagittal cut with the femoral component trial in order to avoid bearing impingement. Be conservative in the tibial cutting by utilizing a +2 cutting guide (since the coupling is performed with the intramedullary guide in place, which drives the tibial guide distally). Acronyms and Abbreviations: UKA = unicompartmental knee arthroplasty FF = femur-first M-L = medial-lateral AP = anteroposterior PA = posteroanterior ASA = acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) BID = bis in die, twice a day PT = physical therapy TF = tibia-first FCA = femoral coronal angle FSA = femoral sagittal angle TSA = tibial sagittal angle IM = intramedullary OA = osteoarthritis

Background: Dual-mobility (DM) implants reduce the risk of dislocation in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, DM implants are at risk for large-head dislocation and intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), where the inner femoral head dissociates from the outer polyethylene head. This study aimed to report the incidence of DM dislocation and IPD, evaluate the rate of recognition of IPD before and after reduction, investigate the outcomes of these complications, and provide treatment recommendations for their management. Methods: Between 2010 and 2021, 695 primary and 758 revision THAs were performed with DM constructs at a single institution. There were 44 large-head dislocations (3.0%) and 10 IPDs (0.7%). Four additional IPDs occurred during attempted closed reduction, increasing the IPD incidence to 0.96%. We reviewed prior instability history, dislocation management, success of reduction, recognition of IPD, and subsequent rates of revision and complications. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years. Results: Nine of 10 IPDs were missed at presentation and thus not treated as such. Sixty-three percent of attempted closed reductions in the emergency department failed and led to 4 IPDs and 1 periprosthetic fracture. Reduction success was associated with the following factors: use of general anesthesia with paralysis (p = 0.02), having the reduction performed by an orthopaedist (p = 0.03), and undergoing only 1 reduction attempt (p = 0.015). Two-thirds of dislocations required revision. The rate of redislocation was 33%, and 5 hips required subsequent revision at a mean of 1.8 years after the initial dislocation. Conclusions: We present an evaluation of DM-implant dislocation and dissociation along with management recommendations based on these data. Given the low success and high complication rates of attempted closed reduction and the need for eventual revision, we recommend that all patients with dislocated DM implants be brought to the operating room for closed reduction as well as potential revision if the reduction fails. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AimsContemporary outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners in patients with inflammatory arthritis have not been well studied. This study examined the implant survivorship, complications, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of THA in patients with inflammatory arthritis.MethodsWe identified 418 hips (350 patients) with a primary diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis who underwent primary THA with HXLPE liners from January 2000 to December 2017. Of these hips, 68% had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 286), 13% ankylosing spondylitis (n = 53), 7% juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (n = 29), 6% psoriatic arthritis (n = 24), 5% systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 23), and 1% scleroderma (n = 3). Mean age was 58 years (SD 14.8), 66.3% were female (n = 277), and mean BMI was 29 kg/m2 (SD 7). Uncemented femoral components were used in 77% of cases (n = 320). Uncemented acetabular components were used in all patients. Competing risk analysis was used accounting for death. Mean follow-up was 4.5 years (2 to 18).ResultsThe ten-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 3%, and was highest in psoriatic arthritis patients (16%). The most common indications for the 15 revisions were dislocations (n = 8) and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI; n = 4, all on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)). The ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 6.1%, with the most common indications being wound infections (six cases, four on DMARDs) and postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures (two cases, both uncemented femoral components). The ten-year cumulative incidence of complications not requiring reoperation was 13.1%, with the most common being intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (15 cases, 14 uncemented femoral components; p = 0.13). Radiological evidence of early femoral component subsidence was observed in six cases (all uncemented). Only one femoral component ultimately developed aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores substantially improved (p < 0.001).ConclusionContemporary primary THAs with HXLPE in patients with inflammatory arthritis had excellent survivorship and good functional outcomes regardless of fixation method. Dislocation, PJI, and periprosthetic fracture were the most common complications in this cohort with inflammatory arthritis.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):768–774.

Background: Many risk factors have been described for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet a patient-specific risk assessment tool remains elusive. The purpose of this study was to develop a high-dimensional, patient-specific risk-stratification nomogram that allows dynamic risk modification based on operative decisions. Methods: In this study, 29,349 THAs, including 21,978 primary and 7371 revision cases, performed between 1998 and 2018 were evaluated. During a mean 6-year follow-up, 1521 THAs were followed by a dislocation. Patients were characterized, through individual-chart review, according to non-modifiable factors (demographics, indication for THA, spine disease, prior spine surgery, and neurologic disease) and modifiable operative decisions (operative approach, femoral head diameter, and type of acetabular liner [standard, elevated, constrained, or dual-mobility]). Multivariable regression models and nomograms were developed with dislocation as a binary outcome at 1 year and 5 years postoperatively. Results: Dislocation risk, based on patient-specific comorbidities and operative decisions, was wide-ranging—from 0.3% to 13% at 1 year and from 0.4% to 19% at 5 years after primary THA, and from 2% to 32% at 1 year and from 3% to 42% at 5 years after revision THA. In the primary-THA group, the direct anterior approach (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.27) and lateral approach (HR = 0.58) decreased the dislocation risk compared with the posterior approach. After adjusting for the approach in that group, the combination of a ≥36-mm-diameter femoral head and an elevated liner yielded the largest decrease in dislocation risk (HR = 0.28), followed by dual-mobility constructs (HR = 0.48). In the patients who underwent revision THA, the adjusted risk of dislocation was most markedly decreased by the use of a dual-mobility construct (HR = 0.40), followed by a ≥36-mm femoral head and an elevated liner (HR = 0.88). The adjusted risk of dislocation after revision THA was decreased by acetabular revision (HR = 0.58), irrespective of whether other components were revised. Conclusions: Our patient-specific dislocation risk calculator, which was strengthened by our use of a robust multivariable model that accounted for comorbidities associated with instability, demonstrated wide-ranging patient-specific risks based on comorbidity profiles. The resultant nomograms can be used as a screening tool to identify patients at high risk for dislocation following THA and to individualize operative decisions for evidence-based risk mitigation. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Most North American surgeons predominantly use uncemented stems in primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reserve cemented stems for selected older patients and those with poor bone quality. However, data on this “selective use” strategy for cemented stems in the population at risk for periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe implant survivorship, complications, and radiographic results of a specific collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem (Exeter; Stryker) used selectively in a predominantly elderly population undergoing primary THA. Methods: We identified 386 patients who underwent a total of 423 primary THAs with selectively utilized Exeter stems for the treatment of osteoarthritis between 2006 and 2017. In the same time period, 11,010 primary THAs were performed with uncemented stems and 961 with non-Exeter cemented stems. The mean patient age was 77 years, 71% were female, and the mean body mass index was 29 kg/m 2 . Competing risk analysis accounting for death was utilized to determine cumulative incidences of revision and reoperation. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 12 years). Results: The 10-year cumulative incidence of any femoral component revision in this patient cohort was 4%, with 10 stems revised at the time of the latest follow-up. There were no intraoperative femoral fractures. The indications for revision were postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 6), dislocation (n = 3), and infection (n = 1). There were no revisions for femoral loosening. The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 10%. The 10-year cumulative incidence of Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fracture was 2%. Radiographically, there were no cases of aseptic loosening or osteolysis. There was a significant improvement in median Harris hip score, from 53 preoperatively to 92 at a mean follow-up of 5 years (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The strategy of selectively utilizing a collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem produced a low (4%) cumulative incidence of stem revision at 10 years postoperatively and resulted in no cases of aseptic loosening. The use of the Exeter stem did not eliminate postoperative femoral fractures in this predominantly elderly, female patient population. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Case: Debonding of the tibial component of total knee arthroplasty is a known complication that is typically treated with revision surgery, most commonly revision to a metal-backed tibial component with or without stems. Here, we present 3 cases of tibial component debonding revised to all-polyethylene tibial components with a cement-in-cement technique. Conclusion: In instances of tibial component debonding, if specific criteria are met, revising to an all-polyethylene tibia with retention of the primary cement mantle is an alternative to revision surgery with cement extraction and implantation of a modular metal-backed tibia.

Background: Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to evolve and is most commonly approached with either hip arthroscopy (HA) or surgical dislocation (SD) of the hip. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of similar patients undergoing surgical treatment of FAI with either HA or SD. Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing primary surgical treatment of FAI was performed. Follow-up at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 4.3 years) was available for 621 hips (81.7%), including 399 procedures with HA and 222 procedures with SD. Propensity scores were calculated and reflect the likelihood of surgical treatment with HA versus SD for a given set of covariates. Propensity scores allowed 1:1 matching to identify similar patients at baseline. After propensity matching, 128 matched pairs of patients who underwent HA and 128 matched pairs of those who underwent SD were included in the study. The primary outcome was the postoperative modified Harris hip score (mHHS); secondary outcomes included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical and mental subscores, as well as the rate of persistent symptoms, revision surgery, and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Results: After propensity matching, the 2 groups exhibited similar distributions of all of the covariates that were included in the model. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The final mHHS was not significantly different between the 2 matched groups (81.3 for the HA group versus 80.2 for the SD group, p = 0.67). Likewise, the HOOS pain subscale was similar at the time of final follow-up (77.6 versus 80.5, respectively, p = 0.32). No difference between the HA group and the SD group was identified in the rate of THA (0% and 3.1%, respectively, p = 0.41) and revision surgery (7.8% and 10.9%, respectively, p = 0.35); overall rates of persistent symptoms were 21.9% for the HA group and 24.4% for the SD group (p = 0.55). Conclusions: In a propensity-matched analysis of patients who were treated with either approach, patients undergoing HA or SD demonstrated similar outcomes at a mean of 4 years postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) remains the gold-standard treatment for acetabular dysplasia in skeletally mature patients with preserved cartilage. The purpose of this multicenter cohort study was to delineate the long-term radiographic natural history of the dysplastic hip following PAO based on the final position of the acetabular fragment. Methods: We evaluated patients who underwent PAO performed by 4 hip preservation surgeons to treat acetabular dysplasia with or without concomitant retroversion from 1996 to 2012 at 3 academic institutions. There were 288 patients with a mean clinical and radiographic follow-up of 9 years (range, 5 to 21 years). Postoperative radiographs made at the first clinical visit were used to determine if the acetabular fragment fell into a safe zone according to the absence of retroversion, a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 25° to 40°, an anterior center-edge angle (ACEA) of 25° to 40°, and a Tönnis angle of 0° to 10°. Every available subsequent radiograph was assessed for degenerative changes by the Tönnis classification (grades 0 to 3). The time to progression was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression and multistate modeling. Results: Only the absence of retroversion was independently associated with a decreased risk of progressing at least 1 Tönnis grade during follow-up: hazard ratio (HR), 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.94; p = 0.025). Achieving the ACEA safe zone yielded the greatest time increase for remaining in Tönnis grade 0 or 1 (43 years for having an ACEA in the safe zone compared with 28 years for not having an ACEA in the safe zone), followed by the absence of retroversion (34 years for the absence of retroversion compared with 24 years for the presence of retroversion). However, attaining the Tönnis angle or LCEA safe zones did not delay progression. The achievement of additional safe zones generally increased the length of time that patients spent in Tönnis grade 0 or 1: 25 years for 0 safe zones, 36 years for 1 safe zone, 29 years for 2 safe zones, 37 years for 3 safe zones, and 44 years for 4 safe zones. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of achieving appropriate acetabular reorientation to enhance the longevity of the native hip following PAO. Although the LCEA and the Tönnis angle are the most common metrics used to assess appropriate acetabular correction, this study shows that adequately addressing retroversion and the ACEA has a greater impact on improving the natural history. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.