Advertisement

Prior Instability is Strongly Associated With Dislocation After Isolated Head and Liner Exchange

      Abstract

      Background

      Isolated head and liner exchange is an appealing alternative to a more extensive revision total hip arthroplasty in patients who have well-fixed components. Despite efforts to increase femoral offset and restore soft tissue tensioning, limited component revision may be associated with higher rates of postoperative instability.

      Methods

      This retrospective analysis assessed 209 patients who had a head and liner exchange conducted at a large academic medical center between 2011 and 2019 and had >2 years of follow-up. Functional cup positioning within the Lewinnek safe zone was assessed on postoperative weight-bearing radiographs. Included patients were 56% women, had a mean age of 64 years (range, 24-89) and a mean body mass index of 28.8 kg/m2 (range, 18.2-46.7). The most common indications for surgery included acetabular liner wear in 86 hips (41%), instability in 40 hips (19%), and infection in 36 hips (17%).

      Results

      Twenty-eight hips (13%) had a dislocation within 2 years after surgery. The best-fit model predicting postoperative dislocation included a history of dislocation (adjusted-odds ratio [adj-OR] 5.67, 95% CI 2.39-14.09, P < .001), age (adj-OR 1.04 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.99-1.08, P = .10), and body mass index (adj-OR 0.90 per 1-kg/m2 increase, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = .046).

      Conclusion

      In a large cohort of patients who had isolated head and liner exchange, patients who had prior instability had 7-fold elevated odds of postoperative dislocation. This risk remains significant after controlling for cup positioning outside the Lewinnek safe zone, liner type, head size, neck length, soft tissue compromise, neuromuscular disease, and dual mobility constructs.

      Level of Evidence

      III, retrospective cohort study.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Yu S.
        • Saleh H.
        • Bolz N.
        • Buza J.
        • Iorio R.
        • Rathod P.A.
        • et al.
        Re-revision total hip arthroplasty: epidemiology and factors associated with outcomes.
        J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020; 11: 43-46https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.021
        • Parvizi J.
        • Pour A.E.
        • Keshavarzi N.R.
        • D’Apuzzo M.
        • Sharkey P.F.
        • Hozack W.J.
        Revision total hip arthroplasty in octogenarians: a case-control study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 2612-2618
        • Ong K.L.
        • Lau E.
        • Suggs J.
        • Kurtz S.M.
        • Manley M.T.
        Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468: 3070-3076https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1399-0
        • Mitchell P.A.
        • Masri B.A.
        • Garbuz D.S.
        • Greidanus N.V.
        • Wilson D.
        • Duncan C.P.
        Removal of well-fixed, cementless, acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85: 949-952https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.85B7.13593
        • Adelani M.A.
        • Goodman S.B.
        • Maloney W.J.
        • Huddleston J.I.
        Removal of well-fixed cementless acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        Orthopedics. 2016; 39: e280-e284https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160129-04
        • Petis S.M.
        • Kubista B.
        • Hartzler R.U.
        • Abdel M.P.
        • Berry D.J.
        Polyethylene liner and femoral head exchange in total hip arthroplasty: factors associated with long-term success and failure.
        JBJS. 2019; 101: 421-428
        • Biviji A.A.
        • Ezzet K.A.
        • Pulido P.
        • Colwell C.W.
        Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 625-630https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.015
        • Dorr L.D.
        • Wolf A.W.
        • Chandler R.
        • Conaty J.P.
        Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983; 173: 151-158
        • Rowan F.E.
        • Benjamin B.
        • Pietrak J.R.
        • Haddad F.S.
        Prevention of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 1316-1324https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.047
        • Stevenson K.L.
        • Fryhofer G.
        • Hasenauer M.
        • Lee G.-C.
        Instability after all-Cause acetabular-only revision total hip arthroplasty remains a clinical problem.
        J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 3249-3253https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.011
        • Lachiewicz P.F.
        • Soileau E.
        • Ellis J.
        Modular revision for recurrent dislocation of primary or revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19: 424-429https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2003.12.077
        • McCollum D.E.
        • Gray W.J.
        Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; 261: 159-170
        • Woo R.Y.
        • Morrey B.F.
        Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty.
        JBJS. 1982; 64: 1295-1306
        • Lewinnek G.E.
        • Lewis J.L.
        • Tarr R.
        • Compere C.L.
        • Zimmerman J.R.
        Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties.
        JBJS. 1978; 60: 217-220
        • Earll M.D.
        • Fehring T.K.
        • Griffin W.L.
        • Mason J.B.
        • McCoy T.
        • Odum S.
        Success rate of modular component exchange for the treatment of an unstable total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 864-869https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.34823
        • Toomey S.D.
        • Hopper J.
        • McAuley J.P.
        • Engh C.A.
        Modular component exhange for treatment of recurrent dislocation of a total hip replacement in selected patients.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83: 1529-1533https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200110000-00011
        • Hermansen L.L.
        • Viberg B.
        • Overgaard S.
        Risk factors for dislocation and Re-revision after first-time revision total hip arthroplasty due to recurrent dislocation – a study from the Danish hip arthroplasty register.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 1407-1412https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.004
        • Sutter E.G.
        • Akram F.
        • Miller A.
        • Paprosky W.G.
        • Berger R.A.
        • Gerlinger T.L.
        Outcomes of isolated head and liner exchange using large femoral heads and modern liners in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 1064-1068https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.015
        • Burroughs B.R.
        • Hallstrom B.
        • Golladay G.J.
        • Hoeffel D.
        • Harris W.H.
        Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes.
        J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 11-19https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.07.008
        • Kung P.L.
        • Ries M.D.
        Effect of femoral head size and abductors on dislocation after revision THA.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 465: 170-174https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318159a983
        • Sadhu A.
        • Nam D.
        • Coobs B.R.
        • Barrack T.N.
        • Nunley R.M.
        • Barrack R.L.
        Acetabular component position and the risk of dislocation following primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort analysis.
        J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32: 987-991https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.008
        • Abdel M.P.
        • von Roth P.
        • Jennings M.T.
        • Hanssen A.D.
        • Pagnano M.W.
        What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 386-391https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4432-5
        • Reina N.
        • Putman S.
        • Desmarchelier R.
        • Sari Ali E.
        • Chiron P.
        • Ollivier M.
        • et al.
        Can a target zone safer than Lewinnek’s safe zone be defined to prevent instability of total hip arthroplasties? Case-control study of 56 dislocated THA and 93 matched controls.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 103: 657-661https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.05.015
        • Wiznia D.H.
        • Buchalter D.B.
        • Kirby D.J.
        • Buckland A.J.
        • Long W.J.
        • Schwarzkopf R.
        Applying the hip-spine relationship in total hip arthroplasty.
        Hip Int. 2021; 31: 144-153https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020949837
        • Tezuka T.
        • Heckmann N.D.
        • Bodner R.J.
        • Dorr L.D.
        Functional safe zone is superior to the Lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the Lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability.
        J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 3-8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.034