Instability after total hip arthroplasty

Current Orthopaedic Practice

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 8-14

  Colwell Jr , Clifford W ^a  

^a SCRIPPS CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Head size; Hip dislocation; Prevention; Surgical approach

Indexed keywords

BRACE; FEMUR HEAD; FRACTURE REDUCTION; HIP DISLOCATION; HIP RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; JOINT INSTABILITY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 59949097514     PISSN: 19407041     EISSN: 19417551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BCO.0b013e3181926d7d     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Patel PD, Potts A, Froimson MI. The dislocating hip arthroplasty: prevention and treatment. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22:86-90. An excellent review article with a good algorithm. The article includes a great deal of the data prior to 2007.
2. He RX, Yan SG, Wu LD, Wang XH, Dai XS. Position of the prosthesis and the incidence of dislocation following total hip replacement. Chin Med J (Engl). 2007; 120:1140-1144.
3. Colwell CW Jr, Hozack WJ, Mesko JW, et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty early dislocation rate. Clin Orthop. 2007; 465:155-158. This paper gives up to date data from a large multi-center study on the advantage of increasing head size in decreasing dislocation rates in ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.
4. Pulido L, Restrepo C, Parvizi J. Late instability following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Med Res. 2007; 5:139-142. A review article that analyzes the different factors that lead to late versus early dislocation. This will help the practitioner evaluate the factors that must be considered in planning choices in management.
5. Padgett DE, Warashina H. The unstable total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 2004; 420:72-79.
6. Tsai SJ, Wang CT, Jiang CC. The effect of posterior capsule repair upon post-operative hip dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9:29. This is another article emphasizing the necessity of repairing the posterior capsule to minimize the risk of dislocation if one uses the posterior approach in THA. With repair the results are equal to those of surgeons who use the anterior approach.
7. von Knoch M, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Morrey BF. Late dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2002; 84(A):1949-1953.
8. Meek RM, Allan DB, McPhillips G, Kerr L, Howie CR. Late dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Med Res. 2008; 6:17-23. This review article using data from the Scottish National Arthroplasty Project, identifies older age, previous trauma and rheumatoid disease as risk factors for dislocation. Knowing these facts might help the practitioner manage the primary procedure in a different manner.
9. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005; 87(A):2456-2463.
10. Eingartner C. Current trends in total hip arthroplasty. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007; 9:8-14.
11. Sadr Azodi O, Adami J, Lindstrom D, et al. High body mass index is associated with increased risk of implant dislocation following primary total hip replacement: 2,106 patients followed for up to 8 years. Acta Orthop. 2008; 79:141-147.
12. Mai K, Hardwick ME, Walker RH, et al. Early dislocation rate in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. HSS Journal. 2008; 4: 10-13.
13. Sariali E, Leonard P, Mamoudy P. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty using Hueter anterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23:266-272. This article reviews the results of an anterior approach to THA and confirms the results of other authors utilizing an anterior approach. It is only with excellent repair of the posterior capsule that surgeons are able to approximate these results if the posterior approach is used.
14. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop. 2002; 405:46-53.
15. Kim YS, Kwon SY, Sun DH, Han SK, Maloney WJ. Modified posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty to enhance joint stability. Clin Orthop. 2008; 466:294-299. This is an excellent article in which the treating physician utilizing three different techniques, all with a posterior approach, was able to show significantly different rates of dislocations. This article once again stresses the necessity of repairing the posterior structures when using the posterior approach.
16. Soong M, Rubash HE, Macaulay W. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12:314-321.
17. Kluess D, Martin H, Mittelmeier W, Schmitz KP, Bader R. Influence of femoral head size on impingement, dislocation and stress distribution in total hip replacement. Med Eng Phys. 2007; 29:465-471. A finite element analysis article that identifies the optimal implant position to prevent dislocation as well as showing the advantage of larger head size as another option. This model should help the practitioner in evaluating his results.
18. Dorr LD, Long WT, Sirianni L, Campana M, Wan Z. The argument for the use of Metasul as an articulation surface in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 2004; 429:80-85.
19. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Beaule PE. Prevention and treatment of dislocation after total hip replacement using large diameter balls. Clin Orthop. 2004; 429:108-116.
20. Tower SS, Currier JH, Currier BH, et al. Rim cracking of the cross-linked longevity polyethylene acetabular liner after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007; 89(A):2212-2217.
21. Pritchett JW. Curved-stem hip resurfacing: minimum 20-year followup. Clin Orthop. 2008; 466:1177-1185. This article is one of the most recent to show that one of the advantages of a resurfacing procedure is in its ability to produce a very low dislocation rate. This 20-year follow-up study demonstrates that the risk does not increase over time as in standard THA procedures.
22. Peters CL, McPherson E, Jackson JD, Erickson JA. Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty: 2007; 22:140-144.
23. Cuckler JM, Moore KD, Lombardi AV Jr, McPherson E, Emerson R. Large versus small femoral heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19:41-44.
24. Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004; 86(A):28-39.
25. Leighton RK, Schmidt AH, Collier P, Trask K. Advances in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. Injury. 2007; 38 (Suppl 3):S24-S34.
26. Peak EL, Parvizi J, Ciminiello M, et al. The role of patient restrictions in reducing the prevalence of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. A randomized, prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005; 87(A):247-253.
27. Cummins JS, Weinstein JN. The role of patient restrictions in reducing the prevalence of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005; 87(A):2587; author reply 2587-2588.
28. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007; 370:1508-1519.
29. Iorio R, Specht LM, Healy WL, Tilzey JF, Presutti AH. The effect of EPSTR and minimal incision surgery on dislocation after THA. Clin Orthop. 2006; 447:39-42. This is an excellent article comparing three different posterior approaches and their results with respect to dislocations following THA. It shows that enhanced posterior repair with and without minimal incision has a higher success rate than simple repair.
30. Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, et al. Mid-term results of cementless total hip replacement using a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing with and without computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007; 89(B):455-460. This is one of the first articles to look at the use of navigation in decreasing dislocations and demonstrated a significant decrease with this modality versus standard operating procedures.
31. Reininga IH, Wagenmakers R, van den Akker-Scheek I, et al. Effectiveness of computer-navigated minimally invasive total hip surgery compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8:4.
32. Morrey BF. Difficult complications after hip joint replacement. Dislocation. Clin Orthop. 1997; 344:179-187.
33. Yuan L, Shih C. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999; 119:263-266.
34. Forsythe ME, Whitehouse SL, Dick J, Crawford RW. Functional outcomes after nonrecurrent dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22:227-230. This article reviews the clinical results of a one-time dislocation versus the results of patients without dislocations and finds that their functional results were the same although those who did not have disclocations were better satisfied with their results.
35. Langlais FL, Ropars M, Gaucher F, Musset T, Chaix O. Dual mobility cemented cups have low dislocation rates in THA revisions. Clin Orthop. 2008; 466:389-395. This article examines the results of a dual mobility cup in revision surgery compared with the results of a constrained liner in preventing dislocation and loosening and offers the surgeon an alternative to prevent dislocation in a potentially unstable hip.
36. Jones SA, John A, Mahesen M, et al. Omnifit acetabular component: a solution to preventing and treating dislocation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007; 15:167-169. This manuscript defines the benefit of a constrained liner in the prevention of dislocation, but the follow-up was too short to provide an adequate evaluation of implant loosening over time.
37. Kung PL, Ries MD. Effect of femoral head size and abductors on dislocation after revision THA. Clin Orthop. 2007; 465:170-174. This is an excellent study of the effect of head size on the rate of dislocation with and without abductor weakness. Increased head size was related to improved dislocation rates in those patients with some to excellent abductor strength, but was ineffective if the abductors were absent.
38. Biviji AA, Ezzet KA, Pulido P, Colwell CW, Jr. Modular femoral head and liner exchange for the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008; June 3 [epub ahead of print]. This represents an evaluation of the effectiveness of liner exchange alone in the surgical treatment of recurrent dislocation demonstrating that although the results are reasonably good there is a significant failure rate with this surgical procedure.
39. Parvizi J, Picinic E, Sharkey PF. Revision total hip arthroplasty for instability: surgical techniques and principles. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008; 90(A):1134-1142. This is an excellent review article of the procedures available to treat instability and their relative success as well as failure rates. The article allows the surgeon to choose different alternatives when facing differing presentations.