Search

Background: Modular revision femoral components allow the surgeon to make more precise intraoperative adjustments in anteversion and sizing, which may afford lower dislocation rates and improved osseointegration, but may not offer distinct advantages when compared with less expensive monoblock revision stems.Questions/purposes: We compared modular and monoblock femoral components for revision of Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral defects to determine (1) survivorship of the stems; and (2) complications denoted as intraoperative fracture, dislocation, or failure of osseointegration.Methods: Between 2004 and 2010, participating surgeons at three centers revised 416 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral defects. Of those with minimum 2-year followup (343 THAs, mean followup 51 ± 13 months), 150 (44%) were treated with modular stems and 193 (56%) were treated with monoblock, cylindrical, fully porous-coated stems. During this time, modular stems were generally chosen when there was remodeling of the proximal femur into retroversion and/or larger canal diameters (usually > 18 mm). A total of 27 patients died (6%) with stems intact before 2 years, 46 THAs (13%) were lost to followup before 2 years for reasons other than death, and there was no differential loss to followup between the study groups. The modular stems included 101 with a cylindrical distal geometry (67%) and 49 with a tapered geometry (33%). Mean age (64 versus 68 years), percentage of women (53% versus 47%), and body mass index (31 versus 30 kg/m(2)) were not different between the two cohorts, whereas there was trend toward a slightly greater case complexity in the modular group (55% versus 65% Type 3a femoral defects, p = 0.06). Kaplan-Meier survivorship was calculated for the endpoint of aseptic revision. Proportions of complications in each cohort (dislocation, intraoperative fracture, and failure of osseointegration) were compared.Results: Femoral component rerevision for any reason (including infection) was greater (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.63-2.57; p = 0.03) in the monoblock group (27 of 193 [14%]) compared with the modular cohort (10 of 150 [7%]). Femoral component survival free from aseptic rerevision was greater in the modular group with 91% survival (95% CI, 89%-95%) at 9 years compared with 86% survival (95% CI, 83%-88%) for the monoblock group in the same timeframe. There was no difference in the proportion of mechanically relevant aseptic complications (30 of 193 [16%] in the monoblock group versus 34 of 150 [23%] in the modular group, p = 0.10; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.86-2.53). There were more intraoperative fractures in the modular group (17 of 150 [11%] versus nine of 193 [5%]; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.68-2.73; p = 0.02). There were no differences in the proportions of dislocation (13 of 193 [7%] monoblock versus 14 of 150 [9%] modular; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.16; p = 0.48) or failure of osseointegration (eight of 193 [4%] monoblock versus three of 150 [2%] modular; OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.88-2.84; p = 0.19) between the two groups with the number of hips available for study.Conclusions: Although rerevisions were less common in patients treated with modular stems, aseptic complications such as intraoperative fractures were more common in that group, and the sample was too small to evaluate corrosion-related or fatigue concerns associated with modularity. We cannot therefore conclude from this that one design is superior to the other. Larger studies and pooled analyses will need to be performed to answer this question, but we believe modularity should be avoided in more straightforward cases if possible.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) around hip arthroplasties are an important reason for failure of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants. Little is known about capsular dehiscence patterns as ALTRs decompress from the hip into the surrounding tissue planes; these patterns may also influence the onset and severity of patient symptoms.Questions/purposes: Through a multicenter study approach, we asked: (1) Is ALTR location related to the surgical approach used for arthroplasty in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or THA) with a single, recalled hip arthroplasty system? (2) Do ALTR severity and location affect patient-reported outcomes in these patients? (3) Is ALTR severity different between patients who received the resurfacing version of this component (Articular Surface Replacement [ASR]) and those who received the THA implant in this system (ASR XL)?Methods: In a multicenter prospective study of patients who had undergone surgery with use of the ASR and ASR XL hip system (DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA), 288 patients (333 hips) from two centers had a metal artifact reduction sequence MRI of the hip performed at a mean time of 6 years postsurgery. Procedures included 166 hips (50%) with ASR resurfacing and 167 hips (50%) with ASR XL THA performed between 2004 and 2010. One hundred twenty-nine hips (39%) had been operated on using a direct lateral approach and 204 using a posterior approach (61%). The EQ-5D, Harris hip score, UCLA activity score, and visual analog scale pain score were obtained for each patient. ALTRs were classified using the Anderson ALTR grading system, and the location, synovial thickness, and diameter of the ATLRs were assessed. The relationship between ALTR location and surgical approach as well as for ALTR severity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors for moderate-to-severe ALTRs.Results: Moderate or severe ALTRs were identified in 79 hips (24%); 41 of these hips had been operated on using the direct lateral approach and 38 using the posterior approach. In patients in whom the lateral approach was used, 83% had an anterior ALTR. Similarly, 71% of patients in the posterior approach group had posterior ALTRs. There were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures between patients with moderate-to-severe ALTRs and those with no ALTR findings on MRI (p > 0.09). Use of ASR XL was an independent risk factor for moderate-to-severe ALTRs (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.5 p = 0.004) and patients with ASR XL also had a thicker synovium (median ASR XL = 3.6 mm [1.2-10.6 mm], median ASR = 2.6 mm [1.2-10.7 mm], p < 0.001) and larger maximal ALTR diameter (median ASR XL = 47.6 mm [14-109.70 mm], median ASR = 38.4 [17.2-118.0 mm], p = 0.02) than patients treated with ASR.Conclusions: The location of ALTRs can be predicted based on the previous surgical approach to the hip. Patients with ASR XL are more likely to develop moderate-to-severe ALTRs compared with ASR patients. An extensive range of patient-reported outcome measures may not identify all patients with ALTRs further supporting the use of MRI as a screening measure for ALTRs.Level Of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]