The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:506-516.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00479
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exam for this article:
 Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 28: Spring 2008 (publication date May 15, 200...
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sah, A. P.
Right arrow Articles by Estok, D. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sah, A. P.
Right arrow Articles by Estok, D. M., II
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Dislocation Rate After Conversion from Hip Hemiarthroplasty to Total Hip Arthroplasty

Alexander P. Sah, MD1 and Daniel M. Estok, II, MD2

1 Department of Orthopaedics, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 535, Boston, MA 02114-3117. E-mail address: asah07{at}gmail.com
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115
Investigation performed at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Background: Revision hip arthroplasty is associated with a dislocation rate that is three to five times greater than the rate following primary hip replacement. Conversion of a hip hemiarthroplasty to a total hip replacement is a revision arthroplasty, but it differs from revisions of total hip arthroplasties because a native acetabulum is replaced and the subsequent prosthetic femoral head is smaller. It was our purpose to determine whether the risk of dislocation following conversion surgery is the same as or greater than that following revision total hip replacement.

Methods: From 1994 to 2005, eighty-nine hemiarthroplasties were converted to a total hip arthroplasty in seventy-seven patients, and the results were compared with those of 115 first-time revision total hip replacements following a primary total hip replacement in 111 patients. A retrospective chart review was performed, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The patient demographics were similar between the two groups. The percentages of patients who had undergone revision of only the acetabular component as compared with both components as well as the percentages of those who had received a modular femoral stem as compared with a nonmodular stem were also similar between the two groups.

Results: Postoperatively, the femoral head size and the positioning of the acetabular component were similar between the two groups. The acetabular components were significantly larger (p < 0.001) in the group in which a total hip arthroplasty had been revised because they required additional acetabular reaming for placement of a new component. There were significantly more dislocations after the conversion procedures (22%) than after the revisions of the total hip arthroplasties (10%) (p < 0.018). Within both groups, the size of the acetabular component, the intraoperative range of motion, and the positioning of the acetabular component were similar between the hips that dislocated and those that did not. However, smaller femoral head components were at greater risk for dislocation after conversion surgery than after revision of a total hip arthroplasty.

Conclusions: A substantial reduction of the size of the prosthetic femoral head is unique to conversion arthroplasty and appears to play a role in instability after the revision surgery. While the smallest heads dislocated in the conversion group, a larger femoral head did not ensure stability. The increased dislocation risk with conversion surgery requires emphasis on soft-tissue balance and avoidance of excessive downsizing of the femoral head in an attempt to maximize hip stability.

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


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?