A conservative approach to dislocation following total hip arthroplasty: a review of 8606 hips

Abstract

Patients and methods:

We present the data on 8606 total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures carried out in 7818 patients through a posterior approach between 1998 and 2017.

Results:

218 hips (2.5%) suffered at least 1 dislocation with dislocation rates declining from 6.2% from 1998 to 2002 to 1.5% from 2003 to 2017. Overall, 92 hips (1.06%) required revision surgery but of these, only 5 (0.06%) had a full revision of both components with the remaining 87 requiring intervention only on the acetabular side. None have had a pseudo-arthrosis; none were left dislocated and all remain stable to date.

Conclusions:

In patients who have a second dislocation within 3 months of their primary surgery we recommend a spica or long leg cylinder cast to reduce the need for revision surgery. We propose an algorithm to manage instability with less aggressive operative treatment in this often-elderly patient population with the potential for less physiological insult and significant cost savings.

Keywords

Dislocation operative technique total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Melvin

Karthikeyan

Cope

, et al. Early failures in total hip arthroplasty — a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1285–1288.

Learmonth

Young

Rorabeck

The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508–1519.

Zagra

Caboni

Total hip arthroplasty instability treatment without dual mobility cups: brief overview and experience of other options. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 661–668.

Iorio

Robb

Healy

, et al. Orthopedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1598–1605.

Wera

Ting

Moric

, et al. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 710–715.

NJR Editorial Board. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man 15th Annual Report 2018, http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2015th%20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf (2018, accessed 6 February 2019).

Dargel

Oppermann

Bruggemann

, et al. Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111: 884–890.

British Orthopaedic Society. A national review of adult elective orthopaedic services in England; Getting it right first time, https://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/GIRFT-National-Report-Mar15-Web.pdf (2015, accessed 6 February 2019).

Archbold

Mockford

Molloy

, et al. The transverse acetabular ligament: an aid to orientation of the acetabular component during primary total hip replacement: a preliminary study of 1000 cases investigating postoperative stability. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 883–886.

10.

DURALOC^® Acetabular Cup System. Surgical technique, http://www.corailpinnacle.net/sites/default/files/2018-05/DSEMJRC06150317%282%29%20DURALOC%20Surgical%20Technique.pdf (2018, accessed 02 May 2019).

11.

Magill

Blaney

Hill

, et al. Impact of a learning curve on the survivorship of 4802 cementless total hip arthroplasties. Bone Joint J 2016; 98–B: 1589–1596.

12.

Ong

Mowat

Chan

, et al. Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 22–28.

13.

Murray

Wetters

Moric

, et al. The use of abduction bracing for the prevention of early postoperative dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(Suppl.): 126–129.

14.

Conroy

Whitehouse

Graves

, et al. Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 867–872.

15.

Bakker-Dyos

Moran

Management of hip instability with a cemented, constrained acetabular component. Hip Int 2012; 22: 254–260.

16.

Coll

Marti

Planell

, et al. Unstable total hip replacement. are constrained liners a solution? Experience and literature review. Ann Orthop Rheumatol 2014; 2: 1033–1038.

17.

Angerame

Fehring

Masonis

, et al. Early failure of primary total hip arthroplasty: is surgical approach a risk factor? J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1780–1785.

18.

Masonis

Bourne

RB.

Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 405: 46–53.

19.

Goldstein

Gleason

Kopplin

, et al. Prevalence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty through a posterolateral approach with partial capsulotomy and capsulorrhaphy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83–A(Suppl. 2 (Pt 1)): 2–7.

20.

Hill

Archbold

Diamond

, et al. Using a calliper to restore the centre of the femoral head during total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94: 1468–1474.

21.

Suh

Roh

Moon

, et al. Posterior approach with posterior soft tissue repair in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Artrhroplasty 2008; 23: 1197–1203.

22.

Tarasevicius

Robertsson

Wingstrand

Posterior soft tissue repair in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Orthopedics 2010; 33: 871.

23.

Warnock

Karayiannis

Gallagher

, et al. Are there gender-specific errors in restoration of hip biomechanics that affect outcome following total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1424–1431.

24.

Archbold

Slomczykowski, Crone

, et al. The relationship of the orientation of the transverse acetabular ligament and acetabular labrum to the suggested safe zones of cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2008; 18: 1–6.

25.

Lewinnek

Lewis

Tarr

, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60: 217–220.

26.

Pinoit

May

Girard

, et al. [Low accuracy of the anterior pelvic plane to guide the position of the cup with imageless computer assistance: variation of position in 106 patients]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2007; 93: 455–460.

27.

Ogonda

Wilson

Archbold

, et al. A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 701–710.

28.

Wolf

DiGioia

III Mor

, et al. Cup alignment error model for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 437: 132–137.

29.

Kayani

Konan

Ayuob

, et al. The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4; 618–625.

30.

Woo

Morrey

BF.

Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64: 1295–1306.

31.

Berry

von Knoch

Schleck

, et al. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 2456–2463.

32.

Crowninshield

Maloney

Wentz

, et al. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don’t do. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 429: 102–107.

33.

Stroh

Issa

Johnson

, et al. Reduced dislocation rates and excellent functional outcomes with large-diameter femoral heads. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 1415–1420.

34.

Howie

Holubowycz

Middleton

, et al. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 1095–1102.

35.

Brown

Elkins

Pedersen

, et al. Impingement and dislocation in total hip arthroplasty: mechanisms and consequences. Iowa Orthop J 2014; 34: 1–15.

36.

Cnudde

Bulow

Szilard

, et al. Association between patient survival following reoperation after total hip replacement: an analysis of 9926 patients in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 2019; 90: 226–230.

37.

Jones

De Martino

D’Apolito

, et al. The use of dual-mobility bearings in patients at high risk of dislocation. Bone Joint J 2019; 101–B(Suppl. A): 41–45.

38.

Blakeney

Epinette

Vendittoli

PA.

Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: should everyone get one?

EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 541–547.

39.

Labek

Brabec

Frischhut

, et al. High failure rate of the Duraloc Constrained Inlay. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 545–547.