Risk Factors for Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundDespite dislocation being the most frequent complication after revision THA, risk factors for its occurrence are not completely understood.Questions/purposesWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsDislocation 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 EvidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  D. Estok,et al.  Dislocation rate after conversion from hip hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  Mario Moric,et al.  The use of abduction bracing for the prevention of early postoperative dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[3]  E. Sariali,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate following isolated cup revision using Hueter's direct anterior approach on a fracture table. , 2011, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[4]  R. Poss,et al.  Trochanteric advancement for recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. , 1987, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  C. D. Della Valle,et al.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  N. Olsen,et al.  Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty. , 1987, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume.

[7]  P. D. Wilson,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1982, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  A. Stark,et al.  Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Revision for recurrent instability: what are the predictors of failure? , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  S. Takemoto,et al.  Is an Algorithmic Approach to the Treatment of Recurrent Dislocation After THA Effective? , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  J. Lawrence,et al.  Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  C. Engh,et al.  Modular Component Exchange for Treatment of Recurrent Dislocation of a Total Hip Replacement in Selected Patients , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  S. Odum,et al.  Why Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Fails , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  P. Kung,et al.  Effect of Femoral Head Size and Abductors on Dislocation after Revision THA , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  Bassam A Masri,et al.  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? , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  T. Barber,et al.  An Analysis of the Risk of Hip Dislocation with a Contemporary Total Joint Registry , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  W. Harris,et al.  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. , 1969, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[20]  B. Morrey,et al.  Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Risk Factors and Treatment Options , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  B F Morrey,et al.  Instability after total hip arthroplasty. , 1992, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[22]  C. Colwell,et al.  Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  Elena Losina,et al.  Rates and Outcomes of Primary and Revision Total Hip Replacement in the United States Medicare Population , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.