Search

Introduction: Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures. Methods: This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0–8.6) years. Results: In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62–3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40–6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87–5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94–4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24–1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years. Conclusions: In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the excellent outcomes associated with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), implant failure and revision continue to burden the healthcare system. The use of computer-assisted navigation (CAN) offers the potential for more accurate placement of hip components during surgery. While intraoperative CAN systems have been shown to improve outcomes in primary THA, their use in the context of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been elucidated. We sought to investigate the validity of using CAN during rTHA. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed at an academic medical institution identifying all patients who underwent rTHA using CAN from 2016–2019. Patients were 1:1 matched with patients undergoing rTHA without CAN (control) based on demographic data. Cup anteversion, inclination, change in leg length discrepancy (ΔLLD) and change in femoral offset between pre- and post-operative plain weight-bearing radiographic images were measured and compared between both groups. A safety target zone of 15–25° for anteversion and 30–50° for inclination was used as a reference for precision analysis of cup position. Results: Eighty-four patients were included: 42 CAN cases and 42 control cases. CAN cases displayed a lower ΔLLD (5.74 ± 7.0 mm vs 9.13 ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.04) and greater anteversion (23.4 ± 8.53° vs 19.76 ± 8.36°, p = 0.0468). There was no statistical difference between the proportion of CAN or control cases that fell within the target safe zone (40% vs 20.9%, p = 0.06). Femoral offset was similar in CAN and control cases (7.63 ± 5.84 mm vs 7.14 ± 4.8 mm, p = 0.68). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the use of CAN may improve accuracy in cup placement compared to conventional methodology, but our numbers are underpowered to show a statistical difference. However, with a ΔLLD of ~ 3.4 mm, CAN may be useful in facilitating the successful restoration of pre-operative leg length following rTHA. Therefore, CAN may be a helpful tool for orthopedic surgeons to assist in cup placement and LLD during complex revision cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cheilectomy of the 1 st metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) is one of the most common procedures for the management of hallux rigidus. However, there is no consensus regarding outcomes following minimally invasive dorsal cheilectomy (MIDC) for the management of hallux rigidus., Aim: To evaluate outcomes following MIDC for the management of hallux rigidus., Methods: During November 2023, the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed to identify clinical studies examining outcomes following MIDC for the management of hallux rigidus., Results: Six studies were included. In total, 348 patients (370 feet) underwent MIDC for hallux rigidus at a weighted mean follow-up of 37.9 ± 16.5 months. The distribution of patients by Coughlin and Shurna's classification was recorded in 4 studies as follows: I (58 patients, 27.1%), II (112 patients, 52.3%), III (44 patients, 20.6%). Three studies performed an additional 1 st MTPJ arthroscopy and debridement following MIDC. Retained intra-articular bone debris was observed in 100% of patients in 1 study. The weighted mean American orthopedic foot and ankle society score improved from a preoperative score of 68.9 ± 3.2 to a postoperative score of 87.1. The complication rate was 8.4%, the most common of which was persistent joint pain and stiffness. Thirty-two failures (8.7%) were observed. Thirty-three secondary procedures (8.9%) were performed at a weighted mean time of 8.6 ± 3.2 months following the index procedure., Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrated improvements in subjective clinical outcomes together with a moderate complication rate following MIDC for the management of hallux rigidus at short-term follow-up. A moderate re-operation rate at short-term follow-up was recorded. The marked heterogeneity between included studies and paucity of high quality comparative studies limits the generation of any robust conclusions., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: No direct funding was provided for this study. John G Kennedy has the following conflicts of interests: John G Kennedy is a consultant for Arthrex and In2Bones. There are donors who contribute to Dr. Kennedy’s discretionary research pool, which is utilised for other studies (not utilised in this study). John G Kennedy receives financial support from the Ohnell Family Foundation, Mr. Winston Fisher and Ms. Tatiana Rybak. No other author has any conflicts of interests to disclose., (©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)