Skip to content

Advertisement

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Cover Image
  • Review article
  • Open Access

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

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 4 and
  • 2
Journal of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyOfficial Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology201819:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-018-0510-2

  • Received: 26 December 2017
  • Accepted: 19 July 2018
  • Published:

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.

Keywords

  • Revision
  • Dislocation
  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Failure
  • Risk factors
  • Surgical treatment

Introduction

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a growing surgical procedure which is likely to increase further in the future as a consequence of the expected rise in primary hip arthroplasty procedures [1]. Dislocation is the main cause of failure after rTHA [2], compromising both long-term function of the joint and patient satisfaction and increasing the risk of successive revision surgeries.

The reported incidence of dislocation after rTHA is as high as 39% [3] and in some cases re-revision surgery is an inevitable procedure. According to the literature, risk factors for dislocation after rTHA can be divided into patient-related and procedure-related factors [4]; however, they are multifactorial and are not as well understood as the risk factors for instability after primary THA. A clear strategy on how to prevent them is not yet available in the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the risk factors and mechanisms of dislocation after rTHA inferred from a systematic review of the available literature in order to identify a possible strategy to prevent dislocation.

The research raised two important questions—(1) what are the risk factors related to instability after rTHA? and (2) what are the best preoperative assessments and surgical options to avoid dislocation after rTHA?

Materials and methods

We performed a search using the keywords ‘revision hip arthroplasty’ in combination with ‘dislocation’, ‘instability’, ‘outcome’, ‘failure’ and ‘treatment’. English journal articles on these items were searched using PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/); Ovid (http://www.ovid.com/); Cochrane Reviews (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/) and Google Scholar databases. No limit regarding the year of publication was set. All journals were considered. After removing duplicates, the research yielded 542 results, including case reports, letters, communications, and prospective and retrospective studies.

All papers investigating risk factors, prevention and/or treatment for dislocation after rTHA for any cause in any population group were included in this study.

Exclusion criteria were studies on dislocation after primary total hip replacement, studies on dislocation after trauma, and studies on dislocation after THA secondary to bone tumors and metastasis. Study design was also an exclusion criteria as case reports, letters and communications were not considered in the study.

Two authors read the abstracts and excluded the articles that were unrelated to the topic of the study. In case of doubt regarding inclusion of an article, the senior author made the final decision. Based on title, abstract and study design 397 articles were excluded. Exclusion was made because of study design for 281 articles and because the topic of the study was not related to dislocation after rTHA in 116 articles. The full text version of the remaining 145 articles was obtained and the reference lists were screened to provide a further 9 articles related to the topic. The content of the 154 resulting articles were discussed by all the co-authors and 33 of the studies were considered eligible for inclusion in this review.

A PRISMA flow chart was used to summarize the selection procedure of the reviewed papers (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow chart of selection procedure of the reviewed papers

The modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. This 15-item score is used for assessment of study quality, with scores ranging from 0–100 (studies with a score < 55 are considered poor quality) [5].

Results and discussion

The research included 33 papers for review. Among them, 15 were eligible for a systematic review and analysis of risk factors for dislocation after rTHA. The remaining 18 articles were inherent to the treatment options and were presented in a narrative way.

Two of the authors evaluated the level of evidence and analyzed the results. Of the 15 articles regarding risk factors, 12 were Level IV (80%) and 2 were Level III (13.3%). Only one (6.6%) Level I study was identified. The MCMS was < 55 for all included studies except one.

Risk factors related to dislocation after rTHA could be divided into patient-related and procedure-related factors [4] as shown in Tables 1 and 2, whereas Table 3 shows the characteristics of the study.
Table 1

Patient-related risk factors

Authors

Previous revision surgeries

Abductor deficiency

History of at least one episode of instability

ONFH

Severe acetabular and femoral bone loss

Greater age

Alberton et al. [12]

 

X

    

Khatod et al. [6]

X

     

Springer et al. [2]

X

     

Carter et al. [7]

X

X

    

Cogan et al. [8]

X

     

Kosashvili et al. [9]

X

     

Wetters et al. [4]

 

X

X

 

X

− (ns)

Jo et al. [10]

X

     

Yoshimoto et al. [11]

X

X

X

X

 

− (ns)

Yoshimoto et al. [13]

 

X

 

X

 

+

Table 2

Procedure-related risk factors

Authors

Small femoral head diameter

Single-component revision

Use of standard rim liner

Alberton et al. [12]

X

 

X

Khatod et al. [6]

   

Sah et al. [14]

X

  

Hummel et al. [15]

X

  

Carter et al. [7]

X

  

Kosashvili et al. [9]

X

  

Garbuz et al. [16]

X

  

Wetters et al. [4]

X

  

Kosashvili et al. [17]

 

X

 

Jo et al. [10]

X

  

Stedman et al. [18]

 

X

 

Yoshimoto et al. [13]

X

  
Table 3

Characteristics of the studies

Authors

Population (no. of hips)

Follow-up (years)

Level of evidence

Alberton et al. [12]

1548

Mean 8.1

Level IV

Khatod et al. [6]

277

Minimum 1

Level III

Sah et al. [14]

204

Mean 4.9

Level IV

Hummel et al. [15]

242

Mean 2.4

Level IV

Springer et al. [2]

1100

Mean 6

Level IV

Carter et al. [7]

156

Mean 5.6

Level III

Cogan et al. [8]

61

Mean 2.4

Level IV

Kosashvili et al. [9]

749

Mean 13.2

Level IV

Garbuz et al. [16]

184

Mean 5

Level I

Wetters et al. [4]

1152

Mean 2

Level IV

Kosashvili et al. [17]

749

Mean 13.2

Level IV

Jo et al. [10]

539

Mean 5.5

Level IV

Yoshimoto et al. [11]

178

Mean 6.7

Level IV

Stedman et al. [18]

187

Mean 7.6

Level IV

Yoshimoto et al. [13]

88

Mean 4.4

Level IV

Patient-related risk factors include:
  1. 1.

    Number of previous revision surgeries;

     
  2. 2.

    Abductor muscles deficiency/trochanteric non-union;

     
  3. 3.

    History of at least one episode of instability before revision surgery;

     
  4. 4.

    Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH);

     
  5. 5.

    Severe acetabular and femoral bone loss;

     
  6. 6.

    Age.

     
Procedure-related risk factors include:
  1. 1.

    Small femoral head diameter;

     
  2. 2.

    Single-component revision;

     
  3. 3.

    Use of a standard rim liner.

     

Patient-related risk factors

Number of previous hip surgeries [2, 611]

The number of revision surgeries is directly related to dislocation rate. Carter et al. [7] found a dislocation rate of 32% in cases of repeated rTHA compared to 15% in cases of first-time rTHA. Similarly, Kosashvili et al. [9] found increased dislocation rates of 35, 46 and 383% after second, third and fourth or more rTHA when compared with first-time rTHA. Moreover, Wetters et al. [4] indicated that patients undergoing revision for instability after a previous rTHA had a 19% (25 of 129) rate of dislocation after the procedure. Recently, Jo et al. [10] found an increased hazard ratio for dislocation after rTHA (1.46) in patients with a history of ≥ 2 previous hip surgeries.

Abductor muscles deficiency [4, 7, 1113]

Abductors at the time of revision surgery are estimated and classified as either intact or deficient. The latter is due to abductor post-surgical trochanteric non-union, detachment or myopathy [4]. Alberton et al. [12] reported 7 cases of dislocation in 9 trochanteric non-unions after rTHA from 1548 rTHAs in 1405 patients. Wetters et al. [4], in a retrospective review, identified abductor deficiency as a stronger predictor risk factor for dislocation with an odds ratio (OR) of 2672. Recently, Yoshimoto et al. [13] reported a re-dislocation rate of 18.2% after rTHA (16 re-dislocations in 88 rTHAs), finding a correlation between the rate of re-dislocation and joint laxity, including necrosis of the gluteus muscles, which was identified in 7 of 16 hips.

History of at least one episode of instability before revision surgery [4, 11]

rTHA performed in a dislocating hip or in patients suffering from previous dislocation has a higher risk of further dislocations.

Wetters et al. [4] found that an unstable implant presented a history of instability in 46% of cases (52 of 113 patients) compared to a stable implant which presented a previous history of instability in 24.2% of cases (251 of 1039 patients).

Similar results were reported by Yoshimoto et al. [11] who found that 20% of patients who had dislocation after rTHA (16 of 178) had a previous dislocation before revision surgery, which was significantly higher than 5.4% patients who did not have a dislocation after rTHA.

Osteonecrosis of the femoral head [11, 13]

Yoshimoto et al. found that a diagnosis ONFH at the time of primary surgery was also an independent risk factor for dislocation after rTHA [11]. The authors suggest that the dislocation could have been induced by the reduced soft-tissue stiffness, which can cause a higher range of motion (ROM) [13], in addition to the primary causes that could have led to osteonecrosis (alcohol and use of corticosteroid).

Severe acetabular and femoral bone loss [4]

In cases of severe bone loss, the revision procedure is complicated and troublesome and proper component orientation is not always possible to achieve leading to an increased dislocation rate. Wetters et al. [4] stated that acetabular defect complexity (Paprosky classification of ≥ 3) represents a risk factor because of the difficulties in restoring the centre of rotation of the hip. Proper cup position may also be difficult in these patients due to the altered anatomy.

Age [4, 10, 11, 13]

The effects of age on dislocation have not been fully understood in the available literature. Wetters et al. [4] found that younger patients present a higher risk of dislocation after rTHA, probably due to enhanced activity levels. Patients who had a dislocation subsequent to rTHA were an average of 3 years younger (62 vs 65) than patient who did not dislocate; however, these values did not reach statistical significance.

Conversely, Jo et al. [10] found no differences in dislocation rate after rTHA per 10-year increment; however, again without statistically significant differences.

Furthermore, two multicentre studies [11, 13] found a statistically significant 2.9-fold rise in the risk of dislocation after rTHA for each 10-year age increase. This was related to decreased muscle strength and the increased risk of falling [11].

Procedure-related risk factors

Small femoral head diameter [4, 7, 9, 10, 1216]

The size of the femoral head component has been widely accepted as a risk factor for dislocation after rTHA with an increased risk in cases of smaller femoral head diameter.

Alberton et al. [12] found a significant increase in the number of unstable hips after rTHA using a 22-mm head compared to a 26-mm head or larger sizes. Similarly, Wetters et al. [4] found that unstable implants present more frequently with a smaller head size (mean 34.2 mm) compared to stable implants (mean 36.0 mm). Garbuz et al. [16] reported a dislocation rate of 1.1% in the group with a larger head diameter (36 or 40 mm) and 8.7% in cases with a smaller head diameter (32 mm). Recently, Yoshimoto et al. [13] found that 12 of 16 patient (75%) who had a dislocation after rTHA, were revised using a femoral head < 32 mm and that 30 of 72 patients (42.3%) who did not dislocate were revised using a larger femoral head.

Single-component revision [17, 18]

In cases of rTHA, the procedure could involve one or both components. A higher dislocation rate was found in the literature in cases of single-component revision. Kosashvili et al. [17] found a significantly higher dislocation rate (10.28%) in cases of isolated acetabular revision compared to revision of both components or femoral stem-alone revision (6.61 and 0%, respectively); however, no statistically significant differences were found.

Conversely, Jo et al. found an increased rate of dislocation after rTHA when the acetabular cup is retained. Other authors [2, 4, 8, 1012] found a trend toward an increased dislocation rate when rTHA results in combined component malposition. However, none of those studies reached statistical significance. We did not retrieve any study evaluating the relationship between the combined anteversion techniques and rTHA. Since the combined anteversion technique is an important topic for stability in primary hip arthroplasties [1922], further studies addressing this argument could be useful.

Use of standard liners in revision surgery [9, 12]

Alberton et al. [12] reported a 3.8% dislocation rate after acetabular components revised with an elevated rim liner compared to 8.4% of dislocations after acetabular components revised with a standard rim. Similar results were achieved by Kosashvili et al. [9] although were not statistically significant.

Preoperative assessment and treatment options

The aim of surgery, as for primary hip arthroplasty, is the restoration of the original hip biomechanics, similar to contralateral hip [23].

A preoperative templating is always recommended in order to obtain effective position and orientation components. Abductor muscle deficiency should be assessed while planning rTHA. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the hip should be performed routinely to plan rTHA in order to assess the bone stock, and muscle tissue quality should also be assessed. If the CT scan is not satisfactory, magnetic resonance imaging should be performed for further evaluation of possible abductor muscle deficiency.

A surgical approach is a significant surgical choice both for primary [24, 25] and revision [2628] procedures, and should be based on several factors, such as previous approach, soft tissue and bone condition, and surgeon experience.

The type of approach may influence the risk of dislocation. A study by Hailer et al. [29] of 78,098 THAs extracted from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and considering both primary and revision surgery between 2005 and 2010, reported 399 hip revision procedures due to dislocation; the posterior approach was associated with a higher risk of dislocation compared to the direct lateral approach and anterior approach.

However, no specific articles regarding the risk of dislocation secondary to the approach used in cases of rTHA are reported in the current literature.

Proper muscular tension should always be evaluated, especially when dealing with abductor muscle deficiency. This could be achieved by modifying the femoral offset, either by medializing the femoral centre of rotation or by using a lateralized stem or bigger femoral head.

According to the literature, regardless of the failed prosthetic component, the ideal solution should be revision of both the femoral and the acetabular side, thus being able to choose either best positioning or restore correct offset [17, 18].

Implant options

Larger femoral and acetabular components

Based on the retrieved literature, it is advisable to use a 36-mm head diameter or larger when performing rTHA.

A jumbo femoral head has a maximal head to neck ratio and this minimizes implant impingement [30].

Larger heads need to be coupled with larger acetabular components; however, the latter potentially produce impingement with iliopsoas muscle or tendon, giving anterior hip pain. When using an increased head size, the polyethylene liner thins to accommodate it, but only to a point (the liner has a certain minimum thickness). Therefore, femoral heads > 38 mm require larger acetabular components so that a liner of at least minimum permissible thickness can be used. Theoretically, the surgeon can decide to ream for a larger cup to accommodate the larger head, creating more acetabular bone loss.

In cases of rTHA with moderate to extensive acetabular bone loss, a jumbo acetabular component represents an effective solution. Several studies reported a high rate of success with up to 90% 10-year survival. However, long-term studies have shown late loosening of ‘first-generation’ porous surfaces and wear associated with periprosthetic osteolysis, caused by standard polyethylene liners. ‘New generation’ polyethylene, as highly X-linked polyethylene and vitamin E-doped polyethylene reduce the rate of wear [31, 32].

In addition, use of larger metal heads have raised concerns regarding potential adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs), secondary to corrosion and metal release at the head–neck taper junction. Increasing the head size generates larger torsional forces at the trunnion–head junction, and significantly increases the maximal principal stress in the neck medial area, regardless of the material used for the head. These torsional forces enhance tribocorrosion and could lead to ALTRs.

Therefore, the use of large diameter femoral heads is advisable because the biomechanical and clinical data support the finding of increased stability and increased ROM advantages despite the increased bearing surface wear, which may affect implant longevity.

Elevated rim liner

When approaching revision surgery, the liner design must be taken into consideration. An elevated rim increases the area of contact with the femoral head and theoretically guarantees a higher ROM before the head dislocates.

However, a not well-positioned elevated rim liner may increase impingement against the neck of the prosthesis at high degrees of extension/flexion and internal/external rotation, and this could counteract hip stability.

Dual mobility cups

Dual mobility cups are widely reported to reduce the risk of dislocation after rTHA [3340]. Dual mobility cups are designed with a 22- or 28-mm diameter femoral head component moving inside a larger polyethylene liner. The liner moves freely in a metal shell with an inner diameter corresponding to the outer diameter of the polyethylene liner. Dual mobility components have been extensively used in Europe for > 25 years [33, 34, 41, 42]. They provide greater ROM and jump distance than a single femoral head. This is due to the additional articular surface. Furthermore, a metal dual mobility component could be cemented into a well-fixed retained acetabular shell.

Some concerns regarding dual mobility implants still remain. Some implants in the past showed intraprosthetic dislocation [4345], a specific way of failure due to dislocation between the small femoral head and the mobile polyethylene liner. The dislocation seems to be related to the excessive motion granted by dual mobility implants that may result in impingement of the femoral neck or of the femoral component itself against the large outer polyethylene bearing, leading to polyethylene wear and loss of its inner retentive function.

An additional concern of dual mobility components is whether postoperative motion will continue to occur at both articulations or only at the polyethylene–metal interface.

Despite these issues, dual mobility has a great utility in rTHA. The design provides a low risk of recurrent instability without increasing mechanical complications, particularly when compared with constrained or tripolar cups; namely, a dual mobility liner seems to decrease the risk of dislocation without increasing the risk of loosening [39]. Dual mobility cups also have the advantage of decreasing the need for stem exchange in complex revisions, as they can be used with 22- or 28-mm heads, especially if the head–neck junction is properly designed to interact with dual mobility components. This is shown in several studies in which dual mobility components were used specifically to treat recurrent dislocation [3538]. Furthermore, dual mobility implants have also shown good reliability in unstable hemiarthroplasty revision converted to THA [40].

Salvage procedure

Constrained bearing insert

A constrained bearing insert represents another option in cases of multiple failures for dislocation [46, 47]. A constrained bearing insert consists of a polyethylene liner, which includes a 22- or 28-mm femoral head in the inner-diameter concave surface with a locking ring. This liner is inserted in a polished CoCr shell. The shell articulates with another polyethylene liner (the outer bearing) that can be inserted into a standard acetabular shell. However, some studies report a high rate of impingement between the femoral neck and acetabular cup and reduced ROM when a constrained liner is used [47, 48].

Similarly, Jo et al. [10] reported that the use of a constrained liner could be protective against re-dislocation but was not associated with a lower re-revision rate.

Girdlestone procedure

In cases of multiple failures, with possible deteriorating health conditions of the patient, surgical options could be limited. An excision arthroplasty of the hip, also known as a Girdlestone procedure [49], should be taken into account despite the severe limb shortening and limp.

Conclusion

Although many revision techniques have been proposed, dislocation after rTHA still represents a major problem for the orthopaedic surgeon.

This study has some limitations, mainly due to the low level of evidence of the papers available on this topic which did not provide clear guidelines; however, this could represent a helpful starting point from which to address further research on this relevant topic.

Patients should be given advice regarding the risk of dislocation, and patients at a higher risk, such as those with abductor deficiency, a history of instability, and complex acetabular defect, should be educated regarding their condition. Surgeons performing revisions must identify patients at risk and consider all options in order to minimize the risk of dislocation. A preoperative templating is mandatory in order to obtain effective component orientation.

Surgeons must strive to use larger prosthetic components, when acetabular and femoral bone stock allows such a procedure. When moderate to extensive acetabular bone loss is assessed, rTHA could be effectively performed using larger prosthetic components.

Dual mobility components have been used in Europe for > 25 years and are particularly suitable for recurrent dislocation.

Use of constrained bearing inserts should be considered as a salvage procedure, since they reduce the rate of dislocation, but are not effective in reducing the rate of re-revision.

In cases of failure of the aforementioned options, Girdlestone excision arthroplasty represents the ultimate solution.

Abbreviations

rTHA: 

revision total hip arthroplasty

THA: 

total hip arthroplasty

ONFH: 

osteonecrosis of the femoral head

OR: 

odds ratio

ALTR: 

adverse local tissue reactions

ROM: 

range of movement

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

Each author contributed in equal manner to the development of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy
(2)
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University Hospital “G.Martino”, Messina, Italy
(3)
Agia Sofia General Children’s Hospital, Athens, Greece
(4)
Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

References

  1. 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 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Daly PJ, Morrey BF (1992) Operative correction of an unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1334–1343View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 10:2–11View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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:1788–1792View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheerlinck T (2014) Cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 80:336–347. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00753 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 30Google Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 30Google Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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:256–263View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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:2206–2211View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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:2179–2183View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  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 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement