nach oben

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Erschienen in:

01.02.2013 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

Risk Factors for Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

verfasst von: Nathan G. Wetters, BS, Trevor G. Murray, MD, Mario Moric, MS, Scott M. Sporer, MD, Wayne G. Paprosky, MD, Craig J. Della Valle, MD

Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Ausgabe 2/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Despite dislocation being the most frequent complication after revision THA, risk factors for its occurrence are not completely understood.

Questions/purposes

We therefore (1) determined the overall risk of dislocation after revision THA in a large series of revision THAs using contemporary revision techniques, (2) identified patient-related risk factors predicting dislocation, and (3) identified surgical variables predicting dislocation.

Methods

We performed 1211 revision THAs between June 2004 and October 2010 in 576 women and 415 men who had a mean age of 64.7 years (range, 25–95 years) at time of surgery. Forty-six (4%) were lost to followup and 13 died (1%), leaving 1152 hips followed for a minimum of 90 days (mean, 2 years; range, 90 days to 7.1 years). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for dislocation. The model was also tested on patients followed for a minimum 1 year to assess any difference in longer followup.

Results

One hundred thirteen patients dislocated over the followup period (9.8%). Factors that were different between patients who dislocated and those who remained stable included a history of at least one previous dislocation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.673), abductor deficiency (OR = 2.672), and Paprosky acetabulum class (OR = 1.522). Use of a constrained liner (OR = 0.503) and increased femoral head size (OR = 0.942) were protective against dislocation, while with longer followup a constrained liner was no longer significant.

Conclusions

Dislocation remains a common problem after revision THA. Identifying these risk factors can assist in patient education and surgical planning. Recognition of these risk factors in both patient type and surgical strategy is important for the surgeon performing revision THA and for minimizing these risks.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1788–1792.PubMed

Biviji AA, Ezzet KA, Pulido P, Colwell CW Jr. Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:625–630.PubMedCrossRef

Carter AH, Sheehan EC, Mortazavi SM, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6 suppl):46–52.PubMedCrossRef

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRef

Cogan A, Klouche S, Mamoudy P, Sariali E. Total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate following isolated cup revision using Hueter’s direct anterior approach on a fracture table. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:501–505.PubMedCrossRef

Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55–62.PubMedCrossRef

Ejsted R, Olsen NJ. Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:57–60.PubMed

Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Greidanus NV, Bohm ER, Petrak MJ, Della Valle CJ, Gross AE. The Frank Stinchfield Award. Dislocation in revision THA: do large heads (36 and 40 mm) result in reduced dislocation rates in a randomized clinical trial? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:351–356.PubMedCrossRef

Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMed

10.

Kaplan SJ, Thomas WH, Poss R. Trochanteric advancement for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1987;2:119–124.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:517–526.PubMed

12.

Khatod M, Barber T, Paxton E, Namba R, Fithian D. An analysis of the risk of hip dislocation with a contemporary total joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:19–23.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Kung PL, Ries MD. Effect of femoral head size and abductors on dislocation after revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:170–174.PubMed

14.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, Phillips CB, Losina E, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:27–32.PubMed

16.

Morrey BF. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:237–248.PubMed

17.

Murray TG, Wetters NG, Moric M, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Della Valle CJ. The Use of Abduction Bracing for Early Postoperative Dislocation Prevention Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May 17 [Epub ahead of print].

18.

Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:33–44.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Saadat E, Diekmann G, Takemoto S, Ries MD. Is an algorithmic approach to the treatment of recurrent dislocation after THA effective? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:482–489.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Sah AP, Estok DM 2nd. Dislocation rate after conversion from hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:506–516.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Springer BD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL, Odum SM, Masonis JL. Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:166–173.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Toomey SD, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, Engh CA. Modular component exchange for treatment of recurrent dislocation of a total hip replacement in selected patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1529–1533.PubMed

23.

Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:16–23.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Risk Factors for Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
verfasst von: Nathan G. Wetters, BS
Trevor G. Murray, MD
Mario Moric, MS
Scott M. Sporer, MD
Wayne G. Paprosky, MD
Craig J. Della Valle, MD
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2013
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Ausgabe 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Elektronische ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2561-7

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Risk Factors for Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty