English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is unclear which factors are the most important protectors for early postoperative dislocation in aseptic total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions with stem retention. Therefore, we sought to determine what factors reduce the incidence of dislocations among these patients. Single institution retrospective review was made of 83 consecutive aseptic THA revisions of the head/liner and/or cup performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2020. Periprosthetic infections and femoral component revisions were excluded. Demographics, preoperative diagnosis, revision type, surgical approach, use of dual mobility systems, length of stay, skin-to-skin time, transfusions, complications, and dislocations were assessed. Pearson correlation/logistic regression analyses were used to determine association/independent predictors of dislocation; α was set at 0.05. The overall dislocation rate was 12%. In Pearson correlation, only preoperative diagnosis (instability vs. other, −0.241, p = 0.028) and revision type (only liner vs. cup, −0.304, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with dislocations. In logistic regression, only preoperative diagnosis other than instability (odds ratio [OR] = 0.235, p = 0.038) and cup revision (OR = 0.130, p = 0.014) were found significant protectors against dislocation. Surgical approach and dual mobility systems were not independent predictors of dislocations (p = 0.184 and p = 0.083, respectively). Dislocation rates were significantly different between those cases that had the cup revised (4.0%) and those that did not (24.2%; p = 0.012). Preoperative diagnosis other than instability and cup revision seemed to be protective against early dislocation. Revision of the cup, in particular, seemed to be the most important factor to avoid dislocations while use of dual mobility liners per se did not significantly reduce that risk. The role of isolated liner exchanges in revision THA continues to evolve and should be reserved for appropriately selected patients.

What Factors Reduce the Incidence of Early Dislocations in Aseptic Total Hip Revisions with Stem Retention?