0
Scientific Articles   |    
Effect of Femoral Head Diameter and Operative Approach on Risk of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty
Daniel J. Berry, MD1; Marius von Knoch, MD1; Cathy D. Schleck, BS1; William S. Harmsen, MS1
1 Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for D.J. Berry: berry.daniel@mayo.edu
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2005; 87:2456-2463  doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02860
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: It has been postulated that use of a larger femoral head could reduce the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty, but only limited clinical data have been presented as proof of this hypothesis.

Methods: From 1969 to 1999, 21,047 primary total hip arthroplasties with varying femoral head sizes were performed at one institution. Patients routinely were followed at defined intervals and were specifically queried about dislocation. The operative approach was anterolateral in 9155 arthroplasties, posterolateral in 3646, and transtrochanteric in 8246. The femoral head diameter was 22 mm in 8691 of the procedures, 28 mm in 8797, and 32 mm in 3559.

Results: One or more dislocations occurred in 868 of the 21,047 hips. The cumulative risk of first-time dislocation was 2.2% at one year, 3.0% at five years, 3.8% at ten years, and 6.0% at twenty years. The cumulative ten-year rate of dislocation was 3.1% following anterolateral approaches, 3.4% following transtrochanteric approaches, and 6.9% following posterolateral approaches. The cumulative ten-year rate of dislocation was 3.8% for 22-mm-diameter femoral heads, 3.0% for 28-mm heads, and 2.4% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with an anterolateral approach; 3.5% for 22-mm heads, 3.5% for 28-mm heads, and 2.8% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with a transtrochanteric approach; and 12.1% for 22-mm heads, 6.9% for 28-mm heads, and 3.8% for 32-mm heads in hips treated with a posterolateral approach. Multivariate analysis showed the relative risk of dislocation to be 1.7 for 22-mm compared with 32-mm heads and 1.3 for 28-mm compared with 32-mm heads.

Conclusions: In total hip arthroplasty, a larger femoral head diameter was associated with a lower long-term cumulative risk of dislocation. The femoral head diameter had an effect in association with all operative approaches, but the effect was greatest in association with the posterolateral approach.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $30
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Himanshu Sharma
    Posted on January 17, 2006
    Hip Dislocation Following Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, SCOTLAND, PA2 9PN, UK

    To The Editor:

    We read with interest the article by Berry, et al,(1). We would like to congratulate the authors for reviewing a very large cohort series with a quite long follow- up. However, because this was a computer database analysis, the study suffers from lack of a detailed clinical and radiologic data analysis, which leads us to raise some questions about the completeness of the study.

    There were too many variables and confounding factors including a wide range of patient ages, several operating surgeons, and many implants used over many years. Nevertheless, we believe the authors effectively confirmed the anecdotal hypotheses about the effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. (2,3,4)

    Dislocations that occurred in patients with well positioned components could have been compared with dislocations that occurred in patients with mal- positioned components to determine whether good radiographic appearances were associated with better clinical outcomes, the number of recurrent dislocations,and other complications.

    Septic dislocations are a real orthopaedic challenge, which was not looked into further. We would also be interested to know whether an early versus a late dislocation had a higher recurrence rate.

    Furthermore, what was the relationship of an operating surgeon's experience and the rate of dislocation? Patient related factors, complexity of the hip, and any particular implant as a common denominator should also be identified, as it might help us in pinpointing implant specific problems in causation of recurrent dislocation.

    References:

    1. 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 Am. 2005 Nov;87(11):2456-63.

    2. Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct;355:163-70.

    3. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Dec;405:46 -53.

    4. Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Sep;82(9):1300-7.

    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    Maine - Central Maine Medical Center