Top

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review article

How to prevent dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the risk factors and a focus on treatment options

Authors: C. Faldini, N. Stefanini, D. Fenga, E. M. Neonakis, F. Perna, A. Mazzotti, F. Pilla, I. K. Triantafyllopoulos, F. Traina

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Dislocation represents the most common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Understanding risk factors for dislocation has a great clinical relevance for every hip surgeon in order to consider all surgical options for effective planning. The aim of this systematic review was to answer two main questions—(1) what are the risk factors for instability after rTHA? and (2) what are the best preoperative assessments and surgical options to avoid dislocation after rTHA?

Materials and methods

Scientific databases were accessed to identify papers dealing with prevention and treatment of dislocation after rTHA. We performed a search using the keywords ‘revision hip arthroplasty’ and ‘dislocation’, ‘instability’, ‘outcome’, ‘failure’, ‘treatment’. After removal of duplicates and exclusion of works published in different languages, 33 articles were reviewed completely.

Results

Risk factors were analysed in order to establish the most relevant and evidence-based treatments available in the current literature.

Conclusions

The risk of dislocation after rTHA can be reduced using some precautions inferred from the literature. The use of a larger femoral and acetabular component, elevated rim liner and dual mobility implants can significantly reduce the risk of dislocation after rTHA. However, care must be taken regarding patient-related risk factors since these cannot be addressed and modified. Hence, a complete evaluation of risk factors should be performed for each patient and procedure before starting rTHA.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 PubMedCrossRef

Springer BD, Fehring TK, Griffin WL et al (2009) Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:166–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0566-z CrossRefPubMed

Daly PJ, Morrey BF (1992) Operative correction of an unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1334–1343CrossRefPubMed

Wetters NG, Murray TG, Moric M et al (2012) Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2561-7 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N et al (2000) Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10:2–11CrossRefPubMed

Khatod M, Barber T, Paxton E et al (2006) An analysis of the risk of hip dislocation with a contemporary total joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000218752.22613.78 CrossRefPubMed

Carter AH, Sheehan EC, Mortazavi SMJ et al (2011) Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure? J Arthroplasty 26:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.021 CrossRefPubMed

Cogan A, Klouche S, Mamoudy P, Sariali E (2011) Total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate following isolated cup revision using Hueter’s direct anterior approach on a fracture table. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:501–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.04.005 CrossRefPubMed

Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2011) Dislocation and infection after revision total hip arthroplasty: comparison between the first and multiply revised total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:1170–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.022 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jo S, Jimenez Almonte JH, Sierra RJ (2015) The cumulative risk of re-dislocation after revision THA performed for instability increases close to 35% at 15 years. J Arthroplasty 30:1177–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.001 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yoshimoto K, Nakashima Y, Yamamoto T et al (2015) Dislocation and its recurrence after revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3020-3 CrossRefPubMed

12.

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

13.

Yoshimoto K, Nakashima Y, Aota S et al (2016) Re-dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation: a multicentre study. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3127-1 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sah AP, Estok DM (2008) Dislocation rate after conversion from hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:506–516. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00479 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hummel MT, Malkani AL, Yakkanti MR, Baker DL (2009) Decreased dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair. J Arthroplasty 24:73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.026 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP et al (2012) 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 470:351–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2146-x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kosashvili Y, Drexler M, Backstein D et al (2014) Dislocation after the first and multiple revision total hip arthroplasty: comparison between acetabulum-only, femur-only and both component revision hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg 57:E15–E18. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.000913 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Stedman RC, Lim D, Husain A et al (2016) Single-component revisions are associated with dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty at intermediate-term follow-up. Hip Int 26:233–236. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000332 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Yoshimine F (2006) The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversion that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements. J Biomech 39:1315–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.03.008 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wan Z, Boutary M, Dorr LD (2008) The influence of acetabular component position on wear in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.06.008 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0598-4 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Nakashima Y, Hirata M, Akiyama M et al (2014) Combined anteversion technique reduced the dislocation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2091-2 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Scheerlinck T (2014) Cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 80:336–347. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00753 PubMedCrossRef

24.

Zijlstra WP, De Hartog B, Van Steenbergen LN et al (2017) Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 88:395–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1317515 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Faldini C, Perna F, Pilla F et al (2016) Is a minimally invasive anterior approach effective in old patients? A pilot study. J Biol Regul Homeost, Agents, p 30

26.

Blackburn J, Lim D, Harrowell I et al (2017) Posterior approach to optimise patient-reported outcome from revision hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 27:175–179. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000442 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nogler MM, Thaler MR (2017) The direct anterior approach for hip revision: accessing the entire femoral diaphysis without endangering the nerve supply. J Arthroplasty 32:510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.044 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Faldini C, Pilla F, Fenga D et al (2016) Isolate acetabular cup revision through the direct anterior hip approach: Surgical technique, early experience and review of the literature. J Biol Regul Homeost, Agents, p 30

29.

Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2012) The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 83:442–448. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.733919 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Beaulé PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC (2002) Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84–A:256–263CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS (2016) The jumbo acetabular component for acetabular revision: curtain calls and caveats. Bone Joint J 98–B:64–67. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.98b1.36139 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Oral E, Christensen SD, Malhi AS et al (2006) Wear resistance and mechanical properties of highly cross-linked, ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene doped with vitamin E. J Arthroplasty 21:580–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.07.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Langlais FL, Ropars M, Gaucher F et al (2008) Dual mobility cemented cups have low dislocation rates in THA revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:389–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0047-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Philippot R, Adam P, Reckhaus M et al (2009) Prevention of dislocation in total hip revision surgery using a dual mobility design. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:407–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.04.016 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G et al (2009) Use of a dual mobility socket to manage total hip arthroplasty instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:465–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0476-0 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Hamadouche M, Biau DJ, Huten D et al (2010) The use of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3248–3254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1404-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Leiber-Wackenheim F, Brunschweiler B, Ehlinger M et al (2011) Treatment of recurrent THR dislocation using of a cementless dual-mobility cup: a 59 cases series with a mean 8 years’ follow-up. OTSR 97:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.08.003 PubMedCrossRef

38.

Mertl P, Combes A, Leiber-Wackenheim F et al (2012) Recurrence of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty revision using dual mobility cups was rare in 180 hips followed over 7 years. HSS J 8:251–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9301-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F et al (2012) A dual-mobility cup reduces risk of dislocation in isolated acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3542–3548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2428-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Carulli C, Macera A, Matassi F et al (2016) The use of a dual mobility cup in the management of recurrent dislocations of hip hemiarthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 17:131–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-015-0365-8 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Farizon F, De Lavison R, Azoulai JJ, Bousquet G (1998) Results with a cementless alumina-coated cup with dual mobility. A 12-year follow-up study. Int Orthop 22:219–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640050246 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F (2012) Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop 36:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1289-4 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Langlois J, El Hage S, Hamadouche M (2014) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a potentially serious complication of dual mobility acetabular cups. Skeletal Radiol 43:1013–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1824-7 PubMedCrossRef

44.

Odland AN, Sierra RJ (2014) Intraprosthetic dislocation of a contemporary dual-mobility design used during conversion THA. Orthopedics 37:e1124–e1128. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20141124-90 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Philippot R, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Intraprosthetic dislocation: a specific complication of the dual-mobility system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:965–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2639-2 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Bremner BRB, Goetz DD, Callaghan JJ et al (2003) Use of constrained acetabular components for hip instability: an average 10-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 18:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00295-X CrossRefPubMed

47.

Callaghan JJ, Parvizi J, Novak CC et al (2004) A constrained liner cemented into a secure cementless acetabular shell. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86–A:2206–2211CrossRefPubMed

48.

Shrader MW, Parvizi J, Lewallen DG (2003) The use of a constrained acetabular component to treat instability after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A:2179–2183CrossRefPubMed

49.

Girdlestone GR (2008) Acute pyogenic arthritis of the hip: an operation giving free access and effective drainage. 1943. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:258–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0082-6 CrossRefPubMed

Title: How to prevent dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the risk factors and a focus on treatment options
Authors: C. Faldini
N. Stefanini
D. Fenga
E. M. Neonakis
F. Perna
A. Mazzotti
F. Pilla
I. K. Triantafyllopoulos
F. Traina
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1590-9921
Electronic ISSN: 1590-9999
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-018-0510-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

How to prevent dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the risk factors and a focus on treatment options

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Assessing the real benefits of surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis without instability and spondylolisthesis: a single surgeon experience with a mean 8-year follow-up

The loading patterns of a short femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty: gait analysis at increasing walking speeds and inclines

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian versions of the Kujala, Larsen, Lysholm and Fulkerson scores in patients with patellofemoral disorders

Clinical and radiographic comparison of a single LP-PRP injection, a single hyaluronic acid injection and daily NSAID administration with a 52-week follow-up: a randomized controlled trial

Fixed-bearing versus high-flexion RP total knee arthroplasty (TKA): midterm results of a randomized controlled trial

Can tape–screw fixation of a quadrupled semitendinosus graft in a full-length tibial tunnel provide superior fixation compared with a doubled semitendinosus–gracilis held with an interference screw? A matched-pair cadaveric biomechanical comparison