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?

BackgroundDislocation after revision THA is a common complication. Large heads have the potential to decrease dislocation rate, but it is unclear whether they do so in revision THA.Questions/purposesWe therefore determined whether a large femoral head (36 and 40 mm) resulted in a decreased dislocation rate compared to a standard head (32 mm).MethodsWe randomized 184 patients undergoing revision THA to receive either a 32-mm head (92 patients) or 36- and 40-mm head (92 patients) and stratified patients by surgeon. The two groups had similar baseline demographics. The primary end point was dislocation. Quality-of-life (QOL) measures were WOMAC and SF-36. The mean followup for dislocation was 5 years (range, 2–7 years); the mean followup for QOL was 2.2 years (range, 1.6–4 years).ResultsIn the 36- and 40-mm head group, the dislocation rate was 1.1% (one of 92) versus 8.7% (eight of 92) for the 32-mm head. There was no difference in QOL outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsOur observations confirm a large femoral head (36 or 40 mm) reduces dislocation rates in patients undergoing revision THA at short-term followup. We now routinely use large heads with a highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liner in all revision THAs.Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  Philip C. Noble,et al.  The Effect of Femoral Component Head Size on Posterior Dislocation of the Artificial Hip Joint* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  I. Serrano-Pedraza,et al.  Lower rates of dislocation with increased femoral head size after primary total hip replacement: a five-year analysis of NHS patients in England. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[3]  A. Coulter,et al.  Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample , 1994, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[5]  Philip Ryan,et al.  Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  W. Harris,et al.  Femoral head sizes larger than 32 mm against highly cross-linked polyethylene. , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

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

[8]  T D Brown,et al.  A Finite Element Analysis of Factors Influencing Total Hip Dislocation , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  Marcel Dudda,et al.  Risk Factors for Early Dislocation after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Case-Control Study , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[10]  R. Crowninshield,et al.  Biomechanics of Large Femoral Heads: What They Do and Don’t Do , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  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.

[12]  L.-j. Yuan,et al.  Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty , 1999, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[13]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[14]  Henrik Malchau,et al.  Large Diameter Femoral Heads on Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene: Minimum 3-year Results , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  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.

[16]  K. Kiguchi,et al.  A study of the effect of the femoral head diameter on prosthetic hip joint dislocation using a hip-joint motion simulator , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[18]  W. Harmsen,et al.  Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  O. Reikerås,et al.  Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with 28 and 32-mm femoral head , 2010, Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[20]  S. Kelley,et al.  Relationship of Femoral Head and Acetabular Size to the Prevalence of Dislocation , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  P. Lachiewicz,et al.  Dislocation of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with 36 and 40-mm Femoral Heads , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  A. Lombardi,et al.  The dislocator, early and late: the role of large heads. , 2009, Orthopedics.

[23]  W. Harris,et al.  Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

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