Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2012

01-02-2012 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

Is an Algorithmic Approach to the Treatment of Recurrent Dislocation After THA Effective?

Authors: Ehsan Saadat, MD, Glenn Diekmann, MD, Steven Takemoto, PhD, Michael D. Ries, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The indications for surgical techniques for treatment of recurrent hip dislocation after THA differ, and their rates of achievement of stability may not be similar.

Questions/purposes

We (1) describe our indications for different approaches for recurrent dislocation, (2) outline an algorithmic approach to the management of recurrently dislocating hips after THA, and (3) determine the overall rate of restoration of stability via this algorithmic approach and for each of four procedures with our indications.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 66 patients (69 hips) with revision THA for symptomatic recurrent dislocation from 1993 to 2008. We determined the rate of achievement of stability for the overall patient population and with each revision technique. Minimum followup was 2.8 years (mean, 7.8 years; range, 2.8–12.7 years).

Results

Fifty-one of the 69 hips (74%) had no further dislocations while nine (13%) required two revisions and nine (13%) required three or more revisions. Ultimately, all of the 69 hips (100%) were stable at followup. Use of a large (36-mm-diameter) head, constrained cup, trochanteric advancement, correction of malposition, and a combination of techniques was effective in achieving stability in 67%, 68%, 86%, 91%, and 90% of cases, respectively.

Conclusions

Separating the treatment of patients based primarily on the presence or absence of (1) component malposition, (2) an intact abductor mechanism, and (3) implants accommodating a large-diameter femoral head, we were able to achieve hip stability with one operation in 74% of cases.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
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
2.
Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1300–1307.PubMed
3.
Beaule PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC. Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:256–263.PubMed
4.
Bystrom S, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI. Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation: a study of 42,987 primary hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:514–524.PubMedCrossRef
5.
D’Angelo F, Murena L, Zatti G, Cherubino P. The unstable total hip replacement. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42:252–259.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP. Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;173:151–158.PubMed
7.
Ekelund A. Trochanteric osteotomy for recurrent dislocation of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:629–632.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Etienne A, Cupic Z, Charnley J. Postoperative dislocation after Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;132:19–23.PubMed
9.
Fackler CD, Poss R. Dislocation in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;151:169–178.PubMed
10.
Goetz DD, Capello WN, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD, Johnston RC. Salvage of a recurrently dislocating total hip prosthesis with use of a constrained acetabular component: a retrospective analysis of fifty-six cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:502–509.PubMed
11.
Grigoris P, Grecula MJ, Amstutz HC. Tripolar hip replacement for recurrent prosthetic dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;304:148–155.PubMed
12.
Huffman GR, Ries MD. Combined vertical and horizontal cable fixation of an extended trochanteric osteotomy site. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:273–277.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Jolles BM, Zangger P, Leyvraz PF. Factors predisposing to dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: a multivariate analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:282–288.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Joshi A, Lee CM, Markovic L, Vlatis G, Murphy JC. Prognosis of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:17–21.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:163–170.PubMedCrossRef
16.
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
17.
Kim Y, Morshed S, Joseph T, Bozic K, Ries MD. Clinical impact of obesity on stability following revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:142–146.PubMedCrossRef
18.
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
19.
Lindberg HO, Carlsson AS, Gentz CF, Pettersson H. Recurrent and non-recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982;53:947–952.PubMedCrossRef
20.
McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:159–170.PubMed
21.
Morrey BF. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:237–248.PubMed
22.
Padgett DE, Warashina H. The unstable total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:72–79.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Parvizi J, Morrey BF. Bipolar hip arthroplasty as a salvage treatment for instability of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1132–1139.PubMed
24.
Paterno SA, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS. The influence of patient-related factors and the position of the acetabular component on the rate of dislocation after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1202–1210.PubMed
25.
Ries MD, Wiedel JD. Bipolar hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a report of three cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;278:121–127.PubMed
26.
Ritter MA. Dislocation and subluxation of the total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:92–94.PubMed
27.
Shrader MW, Parvizi J, Lewallen DG. The use of a constrained acetabular component to treat instability after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2179–2183.PubMed
28.
Soong M, Rubash HE, Macaulay W. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12:314–321.PubMed
29.
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
30.
Turner RS. Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocations: incidence, etiologic factors, and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:196–204.PubMed
31.
Woo RY, Morrey BF. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1295–1306.PubMed
32.
Woolson ST, Rahimtoola ZO. Risk factors for dislocation during the first 3 months after primary total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:662–668.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Is an Algorithmic Approach to the Treatment of Recurrent Dislocation After THA Effective?
Authors
Ehsan Saadat, MD
Glenn Diekmann, MD
Steven Takemoto, PhD
Michael D. Ries, MD
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2101-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2012 Go to the issue

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

Predictors of Participation in Sports After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

Survey

Nonoperative versus Operative Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficit: A Meta-analysis

Clinical Research

Accuracy of Measuring Tape and Vertebral-level Methods to Determine Shoulder Internal Rotation

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

Age and Obesity Are Risk Factors for Adverse Events After Total Hip Arthroplasty

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

Factors Affecting Modular Acetabular Ceramic Liner Insertion: A Biomechanical Analysis

Editorial

Editorial: Complications