Objective To explore the effectiveness and failure causes of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (large-head MoM THA). Methods Between March 2007 and May 2010, 159 patients (183 hips) underwent large-head MoM THA, and the clinical data were analyzed. There were 50 females (54 hips) and 109 males (129 hips) with an average age of 50 years (range, 20-78 years). Single hip was involved in 135 cases (left hip in 69 cases and right hip in 66 cases) and double hips in 24 cases. The causes included femoral head necrosis in 74 cases (93 hips), Legg-Calve-Perthes in 1 case (1 hip), osteoarthritis in 18 cases (19 hips), developmental dysplasia of the hip in 17 cases (18 hips), osteoarthritis after hip septic infection in 8 cases (8 hips), traumatic arthritis of the hip in 6 cases (6 hips), femoral neck fracture in 17 cases (17 hips), ankylosing spondylitis in 8 cases (11 hips), rheumatoid arthritis of hip in 9 cases (9 hips), and adult onset Still’s disease in 1 case (1 hip). Before operation, visual analogue scale (VAS) was 6.59±0.87; Harris score was 45.99±8.07. Results Healing of incisions by first intention was achieved, and no operative complication occurred. The patients were followed up 1.2-8.2 years (mean, 6.1 years). Implant failure was observed in 15 cases (17 hips), and the 5-year survival rate of large-head MoM THA was 91.80% (168/183). The causes of implant failure after THA were inflammatory pseudotumor in 4 cases (4 hips), acetabular aseptic loosening in 3 cases (3 hips), osteolysis in 4 cases (5 hips), acetabular aseptic loosening combined with inflammatory pseudotumor in 3 cases (3 hips), and functional disused in 1 case (2 hips). Of them, 9 cases (11 hips) did not receive revision surgery for various reasons, while 6 cases (6 hips) underwent revision surgery at 1.2-5.4 years (mean 3.7 years) after large-head MoM THA. At last follow-up, VAS and Harris score were 1.72±1.48 and 81.37±10.75 respectively, showing significant differences when compared with preoperative scores (t=–35.547，P=0.000；t=33.823，P=0.000). The function was excellent in 44 hips, good in 89 hips, fair in 33 hips, and poor in 17 hips. Conclusion Large-head MoM THA has a high revision rate during mid- and long-term follow-up because of inflammatory pseudotumor, acetabular aseptic loosening, and osteolysis. Early revision can effectively improve the function of the hip and improve patients’quality of life.
ObjectiveTo review the causes of Latarjet surgery failure and various revision surgeries, in order to provide the reference for the revision of treatment options for Latarjet surgery failure.MethodsLiterature on the causes of Latarjet surgery failure and revision surgeries was extensively reviewed and analyzed. ResultsLatarjet surgery is widely used in clinical practice for recurrent anterior dislocation of shoulder with glenoid defects, especially for the defects of more than 25%. The main reasons for its failure are ununion, bone resorption, graft dislocation, trauma, and graft fracture, etc. The revision surgeries are diverse, the standard treatment has not yet been formed. The revision surgeries include open iliac bone grafting, microscopic Eden-Hybinette surgery, soft tissue reconstruction, open or arthroscopic bone grafting, etc. The differences among the revisions are mainly reflected in grafts, complications, and their costs.ConclusionLatarjet surgery is difficult to operate and requires high technical requirements for the surgeons. It is necessary to continuously improve the surgical technology to reduce the complications related to Latarjet surgery and its revision surgery.
Objective To review research advances of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for patients with Crowe type Ⅳ developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods The recent literature on revision surgery after primary THA in patients with Crowe type Ⅳ DDH was reviewed. The reasons for revision surgery were analyzed and the difficulties of revision surgery, the management methods, and the related prosthesis choices were summarized. Results Patients with Crowe type Ⅳ DDH have small anteroposterior diameter of the acetabulum, large variation in acetabular and femoral anteversion angles, severe soft tissue contractures, which make both THA and revision surgery more difficult. There are many reasons for patients undergoing revision surgery after primary THA, mainly due to aseptic loosening of the prosthesis. Therefore, it is necessary to restore anatomical structures in primary THA, as much as possible and reduce the generation of wear particles to avoid postoperative loosening of the prosthesis. Due to the anatomical characteristics of Crowe type Ⅳ DDH, the patients have acetabular and femoral bone defects, and the repair and reconstruction of bone defects become the key to revision surgery. The acetabular side is usually reconstructed with the appropriate acetabular cup or combined metal block, Cage, or custom component depending on the extent of the bone defect, while the femoral side is preferred to the S-ROM prosthesis. In addition, the prosthetic interface should be ceramic-ceramic or ceramic-highly cross-linked polyethylene wherever possible. Conclusion The reasons leading to revision surgery after primary THA in patients with Crowe type Ⅳ DDH and the surgical difficulties have been clarified, and a large number of clinical studies have proposed corresponding revision modalities based on which good early- and mid-term outcomes have been obtained, but further follow-up is needed to clarify the long-term outcomes. With technological advances and the development of new materials, personalized prostheses for these patients are expected to become a reality.
Objective To explore the short-term effectiveness of hip revision surgery guided by artificial intelligence preoperative planning (AIHIP) system. Methods The clinical data of 22 patients (23 hips) who were admitted between June 2019 and March 2023 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed. There were 12 males and 10 females with an average age of 69.7 years (range, 44-90 years). There were 19 hips in the first revision, 3 hips in the second revision, and 1 hip in the third revision. The causes of revision included 12 hips with prosthesis loosening, 4 hips with acetabular cup loosening, 3 hips with osteolysis, 2 hips with acetabular dislocation, 1 hip with postoperative infection, and 1 hip with prosthesis wear. There were 6 hips in stage ⅡA, 9 hips in stage ⅡB, 4 hips in stage ⅡC, 3 hips in stage ⅢA, and 1 hip in stage ⅢB according to Paprosky staging of acetabular bone defect. The replacement of prosthesis type, operation time, hospitalization stay, ground active condition, and postoperative infection, fracture, prosthesis loosening, and other adverse events were recorded. The function of the affected limb was evaluated by Harris score before operation, at 1 week and 6 months after operation, and the range of motion of the hip joint was compared before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The operation time was 85-510 minutes, with an average of 241.8 minutes; the hospitalization stay was 7-35 days, with an average of 15.2 days; the time of disassociation from the walker was 2-108 days, with an average of 42.2 days. All the 22 patients were followed up 8-53 months (mean, 21.7 months). No adverse events such as prosthesis loosening or infection occurred in the rest of the patients, except for postoperative hematoma of the thigh in 1 patient and dislocation of the hip in 1 hip. The matching degree of acetabular cup was completely matched in 22 hips and mismatched in 1 hip (+2), the matching rate was 95.65%. The matching degree of femoral stem was completely matched in 22 hips and generally matched in 1 hip (−1), and the matching rate was 100%. The Harris scores were 55.3±9.8 and 89.6±7.2 at 1 week and 6 months after operation, respectively, which significantly improved when compared with before operation (33.0±8.6, P<0.05), and further improved at 6 months after operation than at 1 week after operation (P<0.05). The function of hip joint was evaluated by Harris score at 6 months after operation, and 21 hips were good and 2 hips were moderate, which could meet the needs of daily life. The range of motion of hip joint was (111.09±10.11)° at 6 months after operation, which was significantly different from (79.13±18.50)° before operation (t=−7.269, P<0.001). Conclusion AIHIP system can improve the accuracy of revision surgery, reduce the difficulty of surgery, and achieve good postoperative recovery and satisfactory short-term effectiveness.