Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aim. Risk based screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) with ultrasound is common. However, risk factors vary from one country to the other since data are insufficient to give clear recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Methods. In this retrospective case-control study, the health records of all children, who were followed up between 2004 and 2014 at a well-child unit, were investigated for the diagnosis of DDH in Turkey. Of 9758 children, 57 children were found to have abnormal ultrasonographic findings (according to Graf classification) and these constituted the case group. As the control group, healthy 228 children who matched the case children in birth months were selected. Two groups were compared for the risk factors. Results. A total of 19516 hips of 9758 children were examined for DDH. 97 hips of 57 children were found to have abnormal ultrasonographic findings. When the two groups were compared, breech presentation, multiple pregnancy, and torticollis were identified as risk factors. The female sex was also found to have a significantly high prevalence among the children in the case group. Limited hip abduction, positive Ortolani, and Barlow signs were important clinical findings in the case group. Conclusion. According to our findings, breech presentation, female sex, torticollis, and multiple pregnancy were found to be the risk factors of this disorder. Infants with these risk factors should be investigated carefully for DDH.

IntroductionThe choice between unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for treatment of displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in elderly patients still remains controversial. Our objective was to compare series of elderly individuals with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated with either a cemented, modular unipolar or bipolar prosthesis with the same femoral component.Materials and methodsA prospective, randomized controlled trial of 175 displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in patients over 65 years was randomly allocated to unipolar (88) and to bipolar (87) hemiarthroplasty group. The primary end point was implant survival. Secondary end points included difference in ambulatory ability and mortality. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 2 months, at 1, 3 and 5 years. Implant and patient survival were followed until 2/2012. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan–Meier curves with log-rank test. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test and Student’s t test.ResultsUnipolar hemiarthroplasty group had a significantly higher dislocation rate when compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty group. This did not translate into difference in revision rates at 8 years. Prosthetic survival ship was 0.98 (95 % Cl 0.94–1.00) in the unipolar group and 0.97 (95 % Cl 0.93–1.00) in the bipolar group. There were no statistically significant differences in ambulatory ability, possibility to return home mortality or early radiological acetabular erosion. There were significantly more one-time dislocations in the unipolar group, but there was no difference in incidence of revisions due to recurrent dislocations. The overall mortality rate was 6 % at 30 days, 9 % at 90 days, 16 % at 12 months, and 53 % at 5 years. There was no difference in mortality between the groups.ConclusionsUnipolar hemiarthroplasty group had a significantly higher dislocation rate when compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty group. However, both provide elderly patients with equal ambulatory ability and low revision rate at medium-term follow-up.

Currently, many rehabilitation protocols for total hip replacements (THRs) include activity restrictions to prevent postoperative dislocation. There is increasing demand for more efficient and safe rehabilitation protocols. This randomized prospective study evaluates the need for hip restrictions following a modified anterolateral procedure. From 2004 to 2008, 81 patients seeking elective THRs were randomly assigned into a standard rehabilitation group or an early rehabilitation group. The standard group included restrictions to avoid hip flexion >90° and avoidance of riding in a car for the first postoperative month. The early group had no flexion or car riding restrictions. Forty-three patients were in the standard group and 38 patients were in the early group. There were no significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. All patients completed the Short Form 12-question Health Survey and Harris Hip Score preoperatively and at 4 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The time-points at which the patient first drove and ambulated with a cane, without a cane, and without a limp were also collected. No incidents of dislocation occurred. Patients in the early group were faster to ambulate with only a cane (P=.03), without a cane (P<.001), and without a limp (P=.003). They also drove earlier (P=.02). Pace of recovery was the only significant difference between the 2 groups. The early rehabilitation protocol increases the pace of recovery compared to a pathway with hip precautions without increasing complications.

Background Lack of consensus continues regarding the benefit of anteriorly based surgical approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocations for various approaches used in primary THAs from a community-based healthcare organization. Questions/purposes (1) What is the incidence of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation for primary THA in a large community-based healthcare organization? (2) Does the risk of aseptic revision, septic revision, and dislocation vary by THA surgical approach? Methods The Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify primary THAs performed between April 1, 2001 and December 31, 2011. Endpoints were septic revisions, aseptic revisions, and dislocations. The exposure of interest was surgical approach (posterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, direct anterior). Patient, implant, surgeon, and hospital factors were evaluated as possible confounders. Survival analysis was performed with marginal multivariate Cox models. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. A total of 42,438 primary THAs were available for analysis of revision outcomes and 22,237 for dislocation. Median followup was 3 years (interquartile range, 1–5 years). The registry’s voluntary participation is 95%. The most commonly used approach was posterior (75%, N = 31,747) followed by anterolateral (10%, N = 4226), direct anterior (4%, N = 1851), and direct lateral (2%, N = 667). Results During the study period 785 hips (2%) were revised for aseptic reasons, 213 (0.5%) for septic reasons, and 276 (1%) experienced a dislocation. The revision rate per 100 years of observation was 0.54 for aseptic revisions, 0.15 for septic revisions, and 0.58 for dislocations. There were no differences in adjusted risk of revision (either septic or aseptic) across the different THA approaches. However, the anterolateral approach (adjusted HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.63, p = 0.002) and direct anterior approach (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22–0.87, p = 0.017) had a lower risk of dislocation relative to the posterior approach. There were no differences in any of the outcomes when comparing the direct anterior approach with the anterolateral approach. Conclusions Anterior and anterolateral surgical approaches had the advantage of a lower risk of dislocation without increasing the risk of early revision. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Background Dual-mobility (DM) cups were introduced to minimize the risk of THA dislocation. The overall rate of dislocation of DM cups (including both large and small articulations) is controversial and ranges from 0% to 5% in previous studies. Questions/purposes We therefore recorded (1) the dislocation rate, (2) loosening and osteolysis, and (3) subsequent related revisions with DM cups. Methods Between 1998 and 2003, 2480 primary THAs with DM cups were undertaken in 2179 patients. The mean age was 69 years (range, 19–94 years). This group underwent specific clinical and radiographic evaluation at a minimum followup of 0.17 years (mean, 7 years; range, 0.17–11 years) to assess dislocation, reoperation, osteolysis, and cup fixation. Results There were 22 dislocations (0.88%): 15 dislocations of large articulations (0.6%), with two (0.08%) recurring but only one requiring revision (0.04%), and seven intraprosthetic small articulation dislocations (0.28%), all needing revision surgery. At last followup, mean Harris hip score was 91 (range, 60–100); 2439 cups (98%) showed no signs of loosening; and 141 patients (145 hips) had osteolysis (6%). Osteolysis and cup loosening were more frequent in patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery. The 10-year survivorship considering revision for any reason was 93% (95% CI, 91%–95%). Conclusions DM cups had a low dislocation rate in primary THA, with a limited frequency of adverse effects. We recommend DM cups to minimize dislocation in populations at high risk for instability, but they should be avoided in younger, active patients at higher risk for osteolysis. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Posterior soft tissue repair is a well-known procedure in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Many reports have shown the advantage of posterior soft tissue repair in reducing the dislocation rate; however, we were unable to find any randomized trials in the literature. This article describes a randomized trial performed to investigate the effect of posterior soft tissue repair on the dislocation rate after 298 THAs in 291 patients. Preoperatively, patients were randomized into 2 groups: posterior soft tissue repair after insertion of the components, or no posterior soft tissue repair. One year postoperatively, 12 patients had died and 10 were lost to follow-up, leaving 276 THAs in 265 patients for analysis. A posterior soft tissue repair had been performed in 134 and no repair in 141 THA. One year postoperatively, 3 dislocations (2%) had occurred in the repaired group and 7 in the unrepaired group (5%); the difference was not significant ( P =.3). There were 2 sciatic nerve palsies in the repaired group, 1 of which was directly related to the posterior soft tissue repair. In this randomized, controlled trial of 276 THAs followed for 1 year, there was a tendency for a lower dislocation rate, although not statistically significant, when a posterior repair was performed. If reattaching the posterior tendons, it should be performed with caution with respect to the sciatic nerve.

BackgroundWhile continuous optimization is attempted to decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA), dislocation remains a major complication. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the evolution of the dislocation risk after primary THA over the decades and to evaluate its potential publication bias.Patients and methodsA systematic search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines for this meta-analysis in the literature published between 1962 and 2020. MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the dislocation risk and length of follow-up. Studies that reported on revision rates only and did not mention separate dislocations were excluded. All study designs were eligible. Study quality was assessed by existing quality assessment tools adjusted for arthroplasty research. Overall risk and yearly dislocation rates were calculated and related to historical time frame, study design, sample size and length of follow-up.ResultsIn total, 174 studies were included with an overall moderate quality. In total there were 85.209 dislocations reported in 5.030.293 THAs, showing an overall dislocation risk of 1.7%, with a median follow-up of 24 months. The overall dislocation risk classified per decade decreased from 3.7% in 1960–1970 to 0.7% in 2010–2020. The yearly dislocation rate decreased from 1.8 to 0.7% within these same decades. There was no significant correlation between the reported dislocation risk and the duration of follow-up (p = 0.903) or sample size (p = 0.755). The reported dislocation risk was higher in articles with registry data compared to other study designs (p = 0.021).ConclusionThe dislocation risk in THA has been decreasing over the past decades to 0.7%. Non-selective registry studies reported a higher dislocation risk compared to studies with selective cohorts and RCTs. This indicates that the actual dislocation risk is higher than often reported and ‘real-world data’ are reflected better in large-scale cohorts and registries.

Objectives To compare the prevalence of pre- and postoperative osseous deformities and intra-articular lesions in patients with persistent pain following arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) correction and to identify imaging findings associated with progressive cartilage damage. Methods Retrospective study evaluating patients with hip pain following arthroscopic FAI correction between 2010 and 2018. Pre- and postoperative imaging studies were analyzed independently by two blinded readers for osseous deformities (cam-deformity, hip dysplasia, acetabular overcoverage, femoral torsion) and intra-articular lesions (chondro-labral damage, capsular lesions). Prevalence of osseous deformities and intra-articular lesions was compared with paired t -tests/McNemar tests for continuous/dichotomous data. Association between imaging findings and progressive cartilage damage was assessed with logistic regression. Results Forty-six patients (mean age 29 ± 10 years; 30 female) were included. Postoperatively, 74% (34/46) of patients had any osseous deformity including 48% (22/46) acetabular and femoral deformities. Ninety-six percent (44/46) had an intra-articular lesion ranging from 20% (9/46) for femoral to 65% (30/46) for acetabular cartilage lesions. Prevalence of hip dysplasia increased (2 to 20%, p  = 0.01) from pre- to postoperatively while prevalence of cam-deformity decreased (83 to 28%, p  < 0.001). Progressive cartilage damage was detected in 37% (17/46) of patients and was associated with extensive preoperative cartilage damage > 2 h, i.e., > 60° (OR 7.72; p  = 0.02) and an incremental increase in postoperative alpha angles (OR 1.18; p  = 0.04). Conclusion Prevalence of osseous deformities secondary to over- or undercorrrection was high. Extensive preoperative cartilage damage and higher postoperative alpha angles increase the risk for progressive degeneration. Key Points • The majority of patients presented with osseous deformities of the acetabulum or femur (74%) and with intra-articular lesions (96%) on postoperative imaging. • Prevalence of hip dysplasia increased (2 to 20%, p = 0.01) from pre- to postoperatively while prevalence of a cam deformity decreased (83 to 28%, p < 0.001). • Progressive cartilage damage was present in 37% of patients and was associated with extensive preoperative cartilage damage > 2 h (OR 7.72; p = 0.02) and with an incremental increase in postoperative alpha angles (OR 1.18; p = 0.04).

Purpose Preventing dislocation with large head (≥ 36 mm), dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner is another option than a standard (≤ 32 mm). Many other dislocations risk factors than size of the femoral head exist after hip arthroplasty revision. Predicting dislocation with a calculator according to the implant, to the indication of revision, and to patient’s risks could allow a better surgery decision. Methods Our search method covers the period from 2000 to 2022. A total of 470 relevant citations on hip major revision (cup or stem or both revisions) were identified with artificial intelligence comprising 235 publications of 54,742 standard heads comprising 142 publications of 35,270 large heads, comprising 41 publications of 3945 constrained acetabular components, and 52 publications of 10,424 dual mobility implants. We considered four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner) as the entry layer of the artificial neural network (ANN). Indication for revision THA was the second hidden layer. Demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease were the third layer. Implant revision, reconstruction process as next input (hidden layer). Surgery-related factors, and so on. The output was a postoperative dislocation or not. Results Of the 104,381 hips that underwent a major revision, a second revision for dislocation was performed for 9234 hips. In each implant group, dislocation remained the first cause of revision. The rate of second revision for dislocation as a percentage of first revision procedures was significantly higher in the standard head group (11.8%) than in the constrained acetabular liner group (4.5%), the dual mobility group (4.1%), and the large head group (6.1%). Instability of a previous THA, infection, or periprosthetic fracture as the indication for revision was increased risk factors as compared with aseptic loosening. One hundred variables were used to create the calculator with the best parameter combination of data and ranking the different factors, according to the four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner). Conclusion The calculator can be used as a tool to identify patients at risk for dislocation after hip arthroplasty revision and individualize recommendations to select another option than a standard head size.

Purpose This paper aims to provide an overview of the possibility regarding the artificial intelligence application in orthopaedics to predict dislocation with a calculator according to the type of implant (hemiarthroplasty, standard total hip arthroplasty, dual mobility, constrained cups) after primary arthroplasty. Material and methods Among 75 results for primary arthroplasties, 26 articles were reviews on dislocation after hemiarthroplasty, 40 after standard total hip arthroplasty, seven about primary dual-mobility arthroplasty (DM THA), and two reviews about constrained implants. Although our search method for systematic reviews covers ten years (2012–2022), none for dual mobility was published before 2016, showing a recent explosion of original articles on this subject. A total of 1,069,565 implants and 26,488 dislocations in primary arthroplasties are included in these 75 reviews. We used a supervised learning model in which models assign objects to groups as input and artificial neural network (ANN) with nodes, hidden layers, and output layers. We considered only four implant types as the input layer. We considered the patient’s factors (indication for THA, demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease) as the second input values (hidden layer). We considered the implant position as the third input (hidden layer) property including head size, combined anteversion, or spinopelvic alignment. Surgery-related factors, approach, capsule repair, etc. were the fourth input values (hidden layer). The output was a post-operative dislocation or not within three months. Results The accuracy for predicting dislocation with this systematic review was 95%. Dislocation risk, based on the type of implant, was wide-ranging, from 0 to 3.9% (mean 0.31%) for the 3045 DM THA, from 0.2 to 1.2% (overall 0.91%) for the 457 constrained liners, from 1.76 to 4.2% (mean 2.1%) for 895,734 conventional total hip arthroplasties, and from 0.76 to 12.2% (mean 4.5%) for 170,329 hemiarthroplasties. In the conventional THA group, many factors increase the risk of dislocation according to the calculator, and only a few (big head, anterior approach) decrease the risk, but not very significantly. In the hemiarthroplasty group, many factors can increase the risk of dislocation until 30%, but none could decrease the risk. According to the calculator, the DM THA and the constrained liner markedly decreased the risk and were not affected by implant position, spine surgery, and spinopelvic position. Conclusion To our knowledge, this study is the first to yield an implant-specific dislocation risk calculator that incorporates the patient’s comorbidities, the position of components, and surgery factors affecting instability risk.