Sierra, Rafael J.

Background: Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems can be successfully utilized in most revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, fixation of the cemented stem, which is important for cone ingrowth and construct survival, can be compromised. The initial results of our novel technique combining diaphyseal impaction bone-grafting with a metaphyseal cone were promising but required additional study. The purpose of the present study was to assess results of this technique in a larger cohort. Methods: A metaphyseal cone combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and a cemented stem was utilized in 88 revision TKAs at our institution, including 35 from our prior study. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years, and 67% of patients were male. Patients had had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. The 2 most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (78%) and 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (19%). The mean follow-up was 4 years. Results: At the time of the latest follow-up, no cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free from any revision of the cone-impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation was 95% and 65%, respectively. A total of 25 knees (28%) underwent reoperation, with the 2 most common indications being PJI and periprosthetic fracture. All cones were osseointegrated, and all bone graft appeared stable or incorporated. One patient had radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening despite a well-fixed cone; however, this patient was asymptomatic and had not undergone revision at 9 years. Conclusions: When presented with a sclerotic, polished diaphyseal canal with deficient cancellous bone and concomitant metaphyseal bone loss, our technique of combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone proved extremely durable in this larger series of patients. No cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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.

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: Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline hip dysplasia has satisfactory outcomes at short-term follow-up; however, the data on midterm outcomes are inconsistent, and failure rates are high in some studies, limiting understanding of the role and utility of hip arthroscopy in this patient cohort. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date, evidence-based review of the clinical outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy in patients with frank or borderline hip dysplasia at ≥5-year follow-up and report the failure rate and progression to total hip arthroplasty in this cohort. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy in patients with lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) <25° at ≥5-year follow-up. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scoring system. Level of evidence was determined using criteria from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Nine studies were included in this review. Patients with LCEA <25° demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and significant postoperative improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at follow-up ranging from a ≥5 to 10 years. Studies comparing patients with dysplasia to those without did not demonstrate significant differences in preoperative, postoperative, or delta PROs or in failure, reoperation, or revision rates. There was no overall significant correlation between outcomes and LCEA stratification. Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy in carefully selected patients with LCEA <25° can be successful at mid- to long-term follow-up and may provide clinical outcomes and failure rates comparable with patients with normal LCEA, understanding that this is a singular, 2-dimensional radiographic measure that does not differentiate instability from impingement or combinations thereof, warranting future studies delineating these differences. These findings suggest that hip dysplasia may not be an absolute contraindication for isolated hip arthroscopy and may serve as a viable intervention with consideration of staged future periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Importantly, this review does not suggest that hip arthroscopy alters the natural history of dysplasia; therefore, patients with dysplasia should be counseled on the potential utility of PAO by appropriate hip preservation specialists.

Background: Current classification systems for intra-articular pathology intraoperatively have been described for patients with femoroacetabular impingement rather than dysplasia. Purpose: To (1) describe intra-articular findings in dysplastic hips undergoing combined hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO); (2) propose a new chondrolabral classification system for dysplastic hips based on these findings; and (3) correlate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) with the newly proposed classification. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 46 hips underwent combined hip arthroscopy and PAO at our institution between September 2013 and December 2014, irrespective of symptoms or radiographic findings. PROMs were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. At the time of hip arthroscopy, the chondrolabral junction was classified as normal without tear (1 hip, type 1); hypertrophic labrum without chondrolabral disruption (19 hips, type 2); chondrolabral disruption on the articular side, not extending into the capsular side (16 hips, type 3A); chondrolabral disruption extending through the capsular side (3 hips, type 3B); and exposed acetabular subchondral bone (7 hips, type 4). Results: There was a significant difference in postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) ( P = .020), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores ( P = .037), and WOMAC total scores ( P = .049) between chondrolabral junction types. Post hoc analyses demonstrated significant differences between type 2 (84.9 ± 12.9) and type 3A (67.8 ± 20.7; P = .198), and between type 2 and type 4 (59.3 ± 24.3; P = .011) in postoperative mHHS scores; and between type 2 (83.9 ± 12.9) and type 3A (68.9 ± 23.7; P = .045) in postoperative WOMAC total scores. In multivariate analysis, chondrolabral type 3 or type 4, age >35 years, and previous surgery were significantly correlated with worse mHHS scores at 2 years. Conclusion: This new chondrolabral classification is proposed to describe intra-articular pathology seen during combined hip arthroscopy and PAO, specifically in dysplastic hips. More advanced chondrolabral disease was associated with worse PROMs at 2 years.

Dual mobility (DM) components are increasingly used to prevent and treat dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD) is a known rare complication of these implants and has reportedly decreased with modern implants. The purpose of this paper is to report the diagnosis and treatment of modern DM IPD.1453 DM components were implanted between 2010 and 2021. 695 in primary and 758 in revision THA. 49 hips sustained a dislocation of the large head and 5 sustained an IPD at presentation. 6 additional IPD occurred at the time of reduction of large head. The average age was 64, 54% were female and the mean follow-up was three years. Of the 11 IPD, 8 had a history of instability, 5 had abductor insufficiency, 4 had prior lumbar fusion, and 3 were conversions from fracture.The overall IPD incidence was 0.76%. Ten of the 11 DM IPD were missed at initial presentation or at the time of reduction, and all were discharged with presumed reduction. The mean time from IPD to surgical treatment was 3 weeks. One patient died with an IPD at 5 months. A DM head was reimplanted in six, two underwent revision of the acetabular component with exchange of DM head, and four were revised to a constrained liner. The re-revision rate was 55% at a mean 1.8 years. None of the patients who underwent cup revision required subsequent re-revision while half of the constrained liners and exchange of DM heads required re-revision.The overall rate of DM dislocation or IPD is low. It is critical to identify an IPD on radiographs as it was almost universally missed at presentation or when it occurred iatrogenically. For patients presenting with IPD, the surgeon should consider acetabular revision and conversion to a constrained liner or a larger DM, with special attention to removing impinging structures that could increase the risk of re-dislocation.

Background: Full-thickness acetabular cartilage lesions are common findings during primary surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes after acetabular microfracture performed during FAI surgery in a prospective, multicenter cohort. Study Design: Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with FAI who had failed nonoperative management were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter cohort. Preoperative and postoperative (mean follow-up, 4.3 years) patient-reported outcome measures were obtained with a follow-up rate of 81.6% (621/761 hips), including 54 patients who underwent acetabular microfracture. Patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, intraoperative disease severity, and operative procedures were analyzed. Propensity matching using linear regression was used to match 54 hips with microfracture to 162 control hips (1:3) to control for confounding variables. Subanalyses of hips ≤35 and >35 years of age with propensity matching were also performed. Results: Patients who underwent acetabular microfracture were more likely to be male (81.8% vs 40.9%; P < .001), be older in age (35.0 vs 29.9 years; P = .001), have a higher body mass index (27.2 vs 25.0; P = .001), and have a greater alpha angle (69.6° vs 62.3°; P < .001) compared with the nonmicrofracture cohort (n = 533). After propensity matching to control for covariates, patients treated with microfracture displayed no differences in the modified Harris Hip Score or Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ( P = .22-.95) but were more likely to undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) (13% [7/54] compared with 4% [6/162] in the control group; P = .002), and age >35 years was associated with conversion to THA after microfracture. Microfracture performed at or before 35 years of age portended good outcomes with no significant risk of conversion to THA at the most recent follow-up. Conclusion: Microfracture of acetabular cartilage defects appears to be safe and associated with reliably improved short- to mid-term results in younger patients; modified expectations should be realized when full-thickness chondral lesions are identified in patients >35 years of age.

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.