Rationale for the use of the original classification of posttraumatic acetabular deformities in primary total hip replacement

Introduction Analysis of publications on primary hip replacement shows lower survival rates in patients with acetabular injuries. With the lack of a unified system for assessing post-traumatic acetabular deformities, authors tend to use the available classifications of acute pelvic trauma (AO/ ASIF, Young & Burgess, Tile, etc.) and acetabular osteolysis (AAOS, DGOT, Gross and Saleh, Paprosky), which we think can be inappropriate with the classifying systems meant for different patterns of acetabular deficiency. Material and methods CT scans of 117 patients with posttraumatic acetabular deformities were reviewed prior to total hip replacement (THR) performed for posttraumatic grade III coxarthrosis. The displacement of acetabular walls was determined with the measurements tabulated and analyzed. Results An original "ASPID" classification of post-traumatic deformities based on the findings obtained was offered with use of three assessment criteria: localization of the deformity, extent of displacement and the integrity of the pelvic ring. The ASPID classification can be used for the localization of the deformity with anterior (A), superior (S), posterior (P) and inner acetabular walls (I) to be identified. Measurements of displacement ranging 0-5 mm suggests grade 0 displacement; 6-15 mm, grade 1 displacement and greater than 15 mm, grade 2 displacement. The integrity of the pelvic ring evaluated from the involvement side as D0 suggests maintained pelvic integrity and D1, broken pelvic integrity. An acetabular hardware would be marked with 'H'. Conclusion ASPID classification is easy to use and has shown to be practical for planning of primary THR after acetabular fracture.

Comparative study of suction drainage placement in cementless hip replacement among patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis: a prospective randomized study

Background The use of drains reportedly does not improve surgical outcomes after hip replacement. There is still a lack of strict recommendations for drain placement after primary hip replacement. This study aimed to assess the safety of not using suction drainage after primary hip replacement in a population of patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis. Methods In this prospective randomized study, all patients were qualified for primary hip replacement and were divided into two groups: with and without drainage. The inclusion criterion was idiopathic hip osteoarthritis. The exclusion criteria were secondary coxarthrosis, autoimmune disease, coagulopathy, venous/arterial thrombosis, hepatic/renal insufficiency, cement, or hybrid endoprostheses. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical, laboratory, and radiographic parameters were measured for the first three days after surgery. Hematoma collection, due to extended thromboprophylaxis, in the joint and soft tissues was evaluated precisely. The patients underwent follow-up for 30 days. Results The final analysis included a total of 100 patients. We did not find any significant statistical differences between groups in terms of hip fluid collection (9.76 vs. 10.33 mm, with and without drainage, respectively; mean difference, 0.6 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.8 to 3.9; p = 0.653), estimated blood loss (1126 vs. 1224 ml; mean difference, 97.1 ml; 95 % CI -84.1 to 278.2; p = 0.59), and hemoglobin levels on postoperative day 3 (11.05 vs. 10.85 g/dl; mean difference, 0.2; 95 % CI -2.1 to 2.5; p = 0.53). In addition, the other parameters did not show significant differences between groups. Notably, two cases of early infections were observed in the no-drainage group, whereas there were no such complications in the drainage group. Conclusions We conclude that the use of closed suction drainage after primary hip replacement is a safe procedure in patients undergoing extended thromboprophylaxis. Further research is warranted to validate these findings. Trial registration The study was successfully registered retrospectively at Clinicaltrial.gov with the identification number NCT04333264 03 April 2020.

Quadratus lumborum block type 3 versus lumbar plexus block in hip replacement surgery: a randomized, prospective, non-inferiority study

IntroductionThe posterior lumbar plexus block (LPB) has been used for decades to provide acute pain management after hip surgery. Unfamiliarity with the technique and its perceived difficulty, potential risks, and possible adverse effects such as quadriceps weakness have limited broader use. The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) has been reported to be effective for postoperative pain control following hip surgery and may thus offer another regional alternative for practitioners. This study hypothesized that the QLB type 3 (QLB3) can produce a non-inferior analgesic effect compared with LPB for primary hip replacement.MethodsThis double-blinded, non-inferiority trial randomized 46 patients undergoing primary hip replacement to receive either QLB3 or LPB. Outcomes were assessed on postanesthesia care unit arrival and at postoperative hours 6, 12, and 24. The primary outcome measured was numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, presence of quadriceps weakness at first postoperative physical therapy (PT) session, and time to achieve 100 feet of walking.ResultsThe QLB3 did not cross the non-inferiority delta of 2 points on the NRS pain score (mean difference −0.43 (95% CI −1.74 to 0.87)). There were no significant differences between groups in total opioid consumption at 24 hours or in time to achieve 100 feet of walking. Quadriceps weakness at first PT session was less common with QLB3 (26% vs 65%) and time to perform the block was significantly less with QLB3 (10 min vs 5 min).ConclusionThis trial supported the hypothesis that the QLB3 yields non-inferior analgesia compared with LPB for hip replacement surgery.Trial registration numberNCT03801265.

Can the use of an inclinometer improve acetabular cup inclination in total hip arthroplasty? A review of the literature

Introduction: The angle of acetabular (cup) radiographic inclination is an important measurement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures. Abnormal radiographic inclination is associated with dislocation, edge loading and higher failure rates. Consistently achieving a satisfactory radiographic inclination remains a challenge. Inclinometers have been increasingly used over the last decade. This paper reviews the literature to determine whether using an inclinometer improves the accuracy of acetabular cup inclination in THA. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed. The following search terms were used: (‘hip’ OR ‘hip replacement’ OR ‘hip arthroplasty’ OR ‘primary hip replacement’ OR ‘THR’ OR ‘THA’ OR ’Acetabular cup Inclination’) AND (‘Inclinometer’). Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Both radiographic and operative inclination comparisons were included. Results: 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. 2 were randomised control trials with level I evidence, and the remaining studies were cohort studies with level III/IV evidence. 5 were clinical and 2 experimental. In total there were 16 cohorts: 7 using an inclinometer, 6 freehand, and 3 using MAG techniques. All studies comparing radiographic inclination and 1 of 2 studies comparing operative inclination showed an improvement in the attainment of the optimal inclination. Similarly, the use of an inclinometer showed a reduction in the number of outliers when compared to MAG and freehand techniques. Discussion: This review demonstrates that using an inclinometer improved the surgeon’s ability to achieve their intended inclination (both operative and radiographic) and reduced the incidence of positioning outside the safe-zone. However, only 2 of the studies were randomised control trials and these resulted in opposing conclusions. Therefore, further studies looking at the use of inclinometers would prove useful in understanding their true benefit.

Long-term Survival of Endoprostheses in Patients of Different Age Groups

The article presents the results of evaluating the long-term effectiveness of primary hip replacement in patients of different age groups using endoprostheses with various types of fixation and a metal-polyethylene friction pair and substantiate recommendations for choosing the optimal combination of articulating surfaces. Long-term survival of endoprostheses was influenced by age, initial diagnosis and higher level of physical activity. At the risk of revision are patients under 50 years of age, in whom the relative risk of early revisions is 2 times higher and that of late revisions is 3.6 times higher

Assessment on patient outcomes of primary hip replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from ‘The National Joint Registry of England and Wales’

ObjectivesEffects of the UK Department of Health’s national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme on outcomes after primary hip replacement.DesignNatural experimental study using interrupted time series to assess the changes in trends before, during and after ERAS implementation (April 2009 to March 2011).SettingSurgeries in the UK National Joint Registry were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics containing inpatient episodes from National Health Service trusts in England and patient reported outcome measures.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥18 years from 2008 to 2016.Main outcome measuresRegression coefficients of monthly means of length of hospital stay, bed day cost, change in Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) 6 months post-surgery, complications 6 months post-surgery and revision rates 5 years post-surgery.Results438 921 primary hip replacements were identified. Hospital stays shortened from 5.6 days in April 2008 to 3.6 in December 2016. There were also improvements in bed day costs (£7573 in April 2008 to £5239 in December 2016), positive change in self-reported OHS from baseline to 6 months post-surgery (17.7 points in April 2008 to 22.9 points in December 2016), complication rates (4.1% in April 2008 to 1.7% March 2016) and 5 year revision rates (5.9 per 1000 implant-years (95% CI 4.8 to 7.2) in April 2008 to 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 3.9) in December 2011). The positive trends in all outcomes started before ERAS was implemented and continued during and after the programme.ConclusionsPatient outcomes after hip replacement have improved over the last decade. A national ERAS programme maintained this improvement but did not alter the existing rate of change.

Mid-Term Outcomes of Primary Hip Replacement in Patients with End-Stage Chronic Renal Disease

Purpose — to evaluate mid-term outcomes of primary hip replacement in patients with end-stage chronic renal disease and to develop an algorithm for selection of surgical tactics and perioperative treatment.Materials and Methods. The authors evaluated outcomes of primary hip replacement in 45 patients receiving renal substitution therapy and 47 patients without chronic renal disease. Patients with end-stage chronic renal disease (CRD) were divided into two groups: group I included 30 (66.6%) patients receiving chronic hemodialysis (CH) and group II included 15 (33.4%) patients after renal transplantation (RT). Group III of 47 (51.1%) patients without any signs of CRD who underwent hip arthroplasty within relevant period of time was established to evaluate the effectiveness of primary hip replacement. Blood serum Ca2+ and P5+ levels as well as levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) and 1.25-dihydroxyvitamin D were measured to determine the rate of calcium- phosphoric metabolism disturbance. Multi-spiral CT scans of hip joint were performed to identify bone mineral density and the mean Hounsfield (Hu) value was calculated for which the data was obtained from five various points on the proximal femur and acetabulum. Beta-2 microglobulin (B2M) blood test was performed to confirm amyloid bone disease.Results. The authors did not observe statistically significant differences for arthroplasty outcomes in patients of group II and III. Patients receiving long-term hemodialysis demonstrated significantly lower parameters of Harris score and Barthel’s index of social adaptation after hip replacement as compared to groups II and III: patients of group I demonstrated outcomes improvement at 19.55%, in group II — at 13.03%, in group III — at 10.15% as compared to preoperative status. Decrease of 1.25-dihydroxyvitamin D below 20,0 mcg results in resorption of cancellous bone in proximal femur and acetabulum along with myopathy of gluteus muscles. Sharp increase of parathyroid hormone level (over 600 pcg/ml) was accompanied by inhibition of osteoblasts proliferation and differentiation resulting in substantial impairment of mineralization.Conclusion. According to the algorithm suggested by the authors the key parameters that need to be evaluated in preoperative period are parathyroid hormone (PTH) and 1.25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Five-fold increase of PTH (>600 pcg/ml) demands parathyroidectomy as the first stage of treatment to decrease risk of early aseptic loosening of hip prosthesis and development of periprosthetic fracture.