Dislocation rate after hip arthroplasty within the first postoperative year: 36 mm versus 28 mm femoral heads. Hip Int

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, CTO Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Hip international: the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy (Impact Factor: 0.76). 09/2011; 21(5):559-64. DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2011.8647
Source: PubMed


Dislocation is a common and important complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Larger femoral heads may reduce the risk of dislocation and improve the range of movement. The aim of this study was to compare the relative risk (RR) of dislocation during the first year after THA between implants with 28 mm and 36 mm femoral heads. 198 consecutive hips with 28 mm femoral head (Group-28) and 259 hips with 36 mm femoral head (Group-36) were studied. The patients were assessed preoperatively and periodically using the Harris hip score (HHS) and radiographic analysis. The relative risk (RR) of dislocation was calculated. The average HHS significantly improved from a preoperative baseline to the last follow-up at 82.1 months (28 mm) and 44.3 months (36 mm). No statistically significant differences were revealed between the two groups for HHS results and complications (p>0.05), but the difference in RR of dislocation within the first year between the two groups was 7.85 (95% CI: 1.34-46.03), p=0.046.Although dislocation is multifactorial in etiology, the two groups were homogenous for all principal contributing factors except the diameter of the femoral head. Therefore, the use of 36-mm heads can reduce the risk of dislocation following THA by a factor of 8 compared to conventional 28 mm heads.

25 Reads
  • Source
    • "This approach is considered to have less effect on gait since the abductor muscles are not dissected (Shaw 1991, Hedlundh et al. 1995), but it has been associated with an increased risk of dislocations, with risk of injury to the sciatic nerve. More recent studies have shown that use of larger femoral head sizes can markedly reduce the dislocation rate (Amlie et al. 2010, Bistolfi et al. 2011, Ho et al. 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often based on surgeon preference and local traditions. The anterior muscle-sparing approach has recently gained popularity in Europe. We tested the hypothesis that patient satisfaction, pain, function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after THA is not related to the surgical approach. Patients 1,476 patients identified through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were sent questionnaires 1–3 years after undergoing THA in the period from January 2008 to June 2010. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the hip disability osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), visual analog scales (VAS) addressing pain and satisfaction, and questions about complications. 1,273 patients completed the questionnaires and were included in the analysis. Results Adjusted HOOS scores for pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), sport/recreation, and quality of life were significantly worse (p < 0.001 to p = 0.03) for the lateral approach than for the anterior approach and the posterolateral approach (mean differences: 3.2–5.0). These results were related to more patient-reported limping with the lateral approach than with the anterior and posterolateral approaches (25% vs. 12% and 13%, respectively; p < 0.001). Interpretation Patients operated with the lateral approach reported worse outcomes 1–3 years after THA surgery. Self-reported limping occurred twice as often in patients who underwent THA with a lateral approach than in those who underwent THA with an anterior or posterolateral approach. There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes after THA between those who underwent THA with a posterolateral approach and those who underwent THA with an anterior approach.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · Acta Orthopaedica
    • "Several studies have already demonstrated the clinical efficacy of larger femoral heads in reducing the dislocation rate.6822232425 Recently, Bistolfi et al.26 in their study comparing the risk ratio (RR) of dislocation between the two groups (28 mm vs. 36 mm) found it to be approximately 8, which was a statistically significant. However, the limiting factor in their study was stem design variable which affects neck length and offset. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has a multifactorial etiology with variables such as surgical approach, component orientation and position, type of cup, stem and head size. Review of the literature regarding the relationship of head size and dislocation rate in THA is suggestive that large femoral head size is associated with lower dislocation rate after THA. However, limited data is available as a proof of this hypothesis. The purpose of this study was to determine that the use of large head size would lead to a decreased incidence of dislocations following THA. 317 primary THAs were performed using the posterolateral approach with posterior soft-tissue repair between January 2006 and December 2009. Cases were divided into two groups (A and B). Femoral head diameter size 36 mm was used in 163 THA in group A and 28 mm in 154 THA in group B. Average period of followup being 2 years (6 month to 4 years). Patients were routinely followed at definite intervals and were specifically assessed for dislocation. One or more dislocations occurred in 11 out of 317 hips with the overall rate of dislocation being 3.47%. Dislocation rate was 0.6% in 36 mm head size and 6.49% with 28 mm head size (P value is 0.0107). Keeping the stem design variable as a constant, the difference in the rate of dislocation between the two groups was again found to be statistically significant for both un-cemented and cemented stem. Dislocation rate decreased significantly as the size of the head increased in primary THA. However, longer followup is necessary as rate of dislocation or in vivo highly cross linked poly failure or fracture may increase in future affecting the rate of dislocations in primary THA.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2013 · Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
  • Source
    • "This has also been verified in other studies (Berry et al. 2005). The use of 36-mm heads reduced the risk of dislocation following THA compared to 28-mm heads (Bistolfi et al. 2011). Our data support these earlier findings. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose Previous population-based registry studies have shown that larger femoral head size is associated with reduced risk of revision for dislocation. However, the previous data have not included large numbers of hip resurfacing arthroplasties or large metal-on-metal (> 36-mm) femoral head arthroplasties. We evaluated the association between femoral component head size and the risk of revision for dislocation after THA by using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data. Patients and methods 42,379 patients who were operated during 1996–2010 fulfilled our criteria. 18 different cup/stem combinations were included. The head-size groups studied (numbers of cases) were 28 mm (23,800), 32 mm (4,815), 36 mm (3,320), and > 36 mm (10,444). Other risk factors studied were sex, age group (18–49 years, 50–59 years, 60–69 years, 70–79 years, and > 80 years), and time period of operation (1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010). Results The adjusted risk ratio in the Cox model for a revision operation due to dislocation was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.26–0.62) for 32-mm head size, 0.41 (0.24–0.70) for 36-mm head size, and 0.09 (0.05–0.17) for > 36-mm head size compared to implants with a head size of 28 mm. Interpretation Larger femoral heads clearly reduce the risk of dislocation. The difference in using heads of > 36 mm as opposed to 28-mm heads for the overall revision rate at 10 years follow-up is about 2%. Thus, although attractive from a mechanical point of view, based on recent less favorable clinical outcome data on these large heads, consisting mainly of metal-on-metal prostheses, one should be cautious using these implants.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2013 · Acta Orthopaedica
Show more