The impact of failed novel technology and technical errors on the revision burden in total hip arthroplasty: what percentage of revision hip arthroplasty was potentially avoidable?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2022
The impact of failed novel technology and technical errors on the revision burden in total hip arthroplasty: what percentage of revision hip arthroplasty was potentially avoidable?
Despite the high success rate of total hip arthroplasty (THA), new implant technologies continue to be developed. Although potentially useful, such novel developments may result in unintended consequences, leading to revision surgery, often prematurely. In several instances, new technology that appeared promising was later found to be inferior to existing technology and resulting in early revision surgery. Additionally, technical surgical errors may also lead to early revisions. Some have argued that revisions related to such phenomena are potentially avoidable. The present analysis investigates to what extent the contribution of “failed new technology” and “technical errors” contributes to the revision burden and to the need for premature revision arthroplasty.
Methods:
We retrospectively analysed 432 revision THAs and categorised them as either “late revisions” based on survivorship of 10 years or “premature revisions”. Among both cohorts, we determined what percentage of revisions were potentially avoidable and due to failed novel technologies and technical errors, and what percent were “unavoidable”.
Results:
Of the 432 revisions, 267 (62%) were considered premature and 38% were considered late. Of the premature revisions, 108 were considered potentially avoidable (81 failed novel technologies, 27 technical errors).
Conclusions:
Our data demonstrates that new technology and surgical techniques can result in premature failure of THA. Surgeons should take caution when incorporating new implant technology or surgical techniques into their practice.
AnandRGravesSEde SteigerRN, et al. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses?J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93(Suppl. 3): 51–54.
2.
GirardJ. Hip resurfacing: international perspectives. HSS J2017; 13: 7–11.
3.
ZustinJSauterGMorlockMM, et al. Association of osteonecrosis and failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 756–761.
4.
YueEJCabanelaMEDuffyGP, et al. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: risk factors for failure over 25 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 992–999.
5.
SehatzadehSKaulbackKLevinL. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an analysis of safety and revision rates. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser2012; 12: 1–63.
6.
MatharuGSPanditHGMurrayDW. Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475: 304–314.
7.
MarshallDAPykermanKWerleJ, et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 2217–2230.
8.
LachiewiczPF. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a skeptic’s view. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 465: 86–91.
9.
ParkYSHwangSKChoyWS, et al. Ceramic failure after total hip arthroplasty with an alumina-on-alumina bearing. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 780–787.
10.
HiguchiYHasegawaYKomatsuD, et al. Survivorship between 2 different ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty with or without a metal-backed titanium sleeve bearing: a 5- to 14-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 155–160.
11.
KooKHHaYCKimSY, et al. Revision of ceramic head fracture after third generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 214–218.
12.
PoratMParviziJSharkeyPF, et al. Causes of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 382–387.
13.
KimMWKimSMChungYY. Total hip arthroplasty using ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces: long-term assessment of squeaking sounds. Hip Pelvis2018; 30: 18–22.
14.
WalterWLYeungEEspositoC. A review of squeaking hips. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2010; 18: 319–326.
15.
JarrettCARanawatASBruzzoneM, et al. The squeaking hip: a phenomenon of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 1344–1349.
16.
RestrepoCPostZDKaiB, et al. The effect of stem design on the prevalence of squeaking following ceramic-on-ceramic bearing total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 550–557.
17.
KiyamaTKinseyTLMahoneyOM. Can squeaking with ceramic-on-ceramic hip articulations in total hip arthroplasty be avoided?J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1015–1020.
18.
MaiKVeriotiCEzzetKA, et al. Incidence of ‘squeaking’ after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 413–417.
19.
OwenDHRussellNCSmithPN, et al. An estimation of the incidence of squeaking and revision surgery for squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement: a meta-analysis and report from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry. Bone Joint J2014; 96–B: 181–187.
20.
StanatSJCapozziJD. Squeaking in third- and fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 445–453.
21.
PivecRMeneghiniRMHozackWJ, et al. Modular taper junction corrosion and failure: how to approach a recalled total hip arthroplasty implant. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1–6.
22.
NawabiDHDoHTRuelA, et al. Comprehensive analysis of a recalled modular total hip system and recommendations for management. J Bone Joint Surg Am2016; 98: 40–47.
23.
CooperHJUrbanRMWixsonRL, et al. Adverse local tissue reaction arising from corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction in a dual-taper stem with a cobalt-chromium modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 865–872.
24.
BernsteinDTMeftahMParanilamJ, et al. Eighty-six percent failure rate of a modular-neck femoral stem design at 3 to 5 years: lessons learned. J Bone Joint Surg Am2016; 98: e49.
25.
LangtonDJSidaginamaleRPJoyceTJ, et al. Aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions are related to changes in metal ion handling in the joint capsules of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Bone Joint Res2018; 7: 388–396.
26.
DrummondJTranPFaryC. Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a review of adverse reactions and patient management. J Funct Biomater2015; 6: 486–499.
27.
BolognesiMPLedfordCK. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: patient evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2015; 23: 724–731.
28.
WylesCCVan DemarkREIIISierraRJ, et al. High rate of infection after aseptic revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 509–516.
29.
KatzJNWrightEAWrightJ, et al. Twelve-year risk of revision after primary total hip replacement in the U.S. Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012; 94: 1825–1832.
30.
MahomedNNBarrettJAKatzJN, et al. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85–A: 27–32.
31.
CorbettKLLosinaENtiAA, et al. Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. PLoS One2010; 5: e13520.
32.
ParkCWKimJHLimSJ, et al. A minimum of 15-year results of cementless total hip arthroplasty using a 28-mm metal-on-metal articulation. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 1387–1394.
33.
PiseckyLHipmairGSchauerB, et al. 30-years of experience with the cementless implanted Alloclassic CSF screw cup total hip arthroplasty system - an ultra-long-term follow-up. J Orthop2019; 16: 182–186.
34.
KandalaNBConnockMPulikottil-JacobR, et al. Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence. BMJ2015; 350: h756.
35.
ManasterBJ. From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics1996; 16: 645–660.
36.
WidmerKH. A simplified method to determine acetabular cup anteversion from plain radiographs. J Arthroplasty2004; 19: 387–390.
37.
WestacottDJMcArthurJKingRJ, et al. Assessment of cup orientation in hip resurfacing: a comparison of TraumaCad and computed tomography. J Orthop Surg Res2013; 8: 8.
38.
CallaghanJJAlbrightJCGoetzDD, et al. Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am2000; 82: 487–497.
39.
AbdelMPRothPVHarmsenWS, et al. What is the lifetime risk of revision for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty? A 40-year observational study of patients treated with the Charnley cemented total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J2016; 98–B: 1436–1440.
40.
ConroyJLWhitehouseSLGravesSE, et al. Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2008; 23: 867–872.
41.
BanerjeeSIssaKKapadiaBH, et al. Highly-porous metal option for primary cementless acetabular fixation. What is the evidence?Hip Int2013; 23: 509–521.
42.
GarvinKLWhiteTCDusadA, et al. Low wear rates seen in THAs with highly crosslinked polyethylene at 9 to 14 years in patients younger than age 50 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 3829–3835.
43.
CapelloWND’AntonioJARamakrishnanR, et al. Continued improved wear with an annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 825–830.
44.
JacobsCAChristensenCPGreenwaldAS, et al. Clinical performance of highly cross-linked polyethylenes in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 2779–2786.
45.
BerryDJvon KnochMSchleckCD, et al. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 2456–2463.
46.
ZijlstraWPDe HartogBVan SteenbergenLN, et al. Effect of femoral head size and surgical approach on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2017; 88: 395–401.
47.
Del BalsoCTeeterMGTanSC, et al. Trunnionosis: does head size affect fretting and corrosion in total hip arthroplasty?J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 2332–2336.
48.
DyrkaczRMBrandtJMOjoOA, et al. The influence of head size on corrosion and fretting behaviour at the head-neck interface of artificial hip joints. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1036–1040.
49.
LaverniaCJIacobelliDAVillaJM, et al. Trunnion-head stresses in THA: are big heads trouble?J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1085–1088.
50.
FurnesOLieSAHavelinLI, et al. Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement. Comparison of 1,127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand1997; 68: 515–520.
51.
WalczakJPD’ArcyJCRossKR, et al. Low-friction arthroplasty with Boneloc bone-cement: outcome at 2 to 4 years. J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 205–209.
52.
Abdel-KaderKFAllcockSWalkerDI, et al. Boneloc bone-cement: experience in hip arthroplasty during a 3-year period. J Arthroplasty2001; 16: 811–819.
53.
NilsenARWiigM. Total hip arthroplasty with Boneloc: loosening in 102/157 cases after 0.5–3 years. Acta Orthop Scand1996; 67: 57–59.
54.
ThannerJFreij-LarssonCKärrholmJ, et al. Evaluation of Boneloc. Chemical and mechanical properties, and a randomized clinical study of 30 total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand1995; 66: 207–214.
55.
Kindt-LarsenTSmithDBJensenJS. Innovations in acrylic bone cement and application equipment. J Appl Biomater1995; 6: 75–83.
KorkalaOSyrjänenKJ. Intrapelvic cyst formation after hip arthroplasty with a carbon fibre-reinforced polyethylene socket. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1998; 118: 113–115.
58.
PryorGAVillarRNColemanN. Tissue reaction and loosening of carbon-reinforced polyethylene arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br1992; 74: 156–157.
59.
ChmellMJPossRThomasWH, et al. Early failure of Hylamer acetabular inserts due to eccentric wear. J Arthroplasty1996; 11: 351–353.
60.
GraeterJHNevinsR. Early osteolysis with Hylamer acetabular liners. J Arthroplasty1998; 13: 464–466.
61.
VisentinMSteaSDe ClericoM, et al. Determination of crystallinity and crystal structure of Hylamer polyethylene after in vivo wear. J Biomater Appl2006; 21: 131–145.
62.
YamauchiKHasegawaYIwasadaS, et al. Head penetration into Hylamer acetabular liner sterilized by gamma irradiation in air and in a nitrogen atmosphere. J Arthroplasty2001; 16: 463–470.
63.
HuddlestonJIHarrisAHAtienzaCA, et al. Hylamer vs conventional polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty: a long-term case-control study of wear rates and osteolysis. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 203–207.
64.
SylvainGMKassabSCouttsR, et al. Early failure of a roughened surface, precoated femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2001; 16: 141–148.
65.
MohlerCGCallaghanJJCollisDK, et al. Early loosening of the femoral component at the cement-prosthesis interface after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1995; 77: 1315–1322.
66.
WoolsonSTHaberDF. Primary total hip replacement with insertion of an acetabular component without cement and a femoral component with cement. Follow-up study at an average of six years. J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 698–705.
67.
OngAWongKLLaiM, et al. Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 786–792.
68.
RobinsonRPLovellTPGreenTM, et al. Early femoral component loosening in DF-80 total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1989; 4: 55–64.
69.
KelmanGJKrakauerJDAdamsSA, et al. Two- to five-year follow-up of 100 total hip arthroplasties using DF-80 implants. Orthop Rev1994; 23: 420–425.
70.
HarrisWH. Long-term results of cemented femoral stems with roughened precoated surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; 355: 137–143.
71.
CollisDKMohlerCG. Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; 355: 113–122.
72.
MedingJBNassifJMRitterMA. Long-term survival of the T-28 versus the TR-28 cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 928–933.
73.
UlrichSDSeylerTMBennettD, et al. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?Int Orthop2008; 32: 597–604.
74.
MelvinJSKarthikeyanTCopeR, et al. Early failures in total hip arthroplasty – a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1285–1288.
75.
HaynesJAStamboughJBSassoonAA, et al. Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year review. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 622–625.
76.
MalchauH. On the importance of stepwise introduction of new hip implant technology: assessment of total hip replacement using clinical evaluation, radiostereometry, digitised radiography and a national hip registry. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 1995, p.506.
