Abstract
Introduction:
Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures.
Methods:
This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0–8.6) years.
Results:
In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62–3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40–6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87–5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94–4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24–1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years.
Conclusions:
In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.