Skip to main content
Log in

Effective prevention of recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip arthroplasty using a posterior lip augmentation device

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective study was performed to determine the effectiveness of preventing recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip replacement using a posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD).

Methods

Between January 2003 and Dezember 2006, 27 PLADs were used in the treatment of recurrent hip dislocation in 27 patients who had received a cemented primary total hip arthroplasty using Endo-MarkIII/SP2 (Waldemar LINK, Hamburg, Germany) components. The mean number of dislocations prior to stabilization with this specific device was 2.6 (range 2–4, SD ± 0.4) with a mean time to revision surgery of 10 months (IQR 13). The mean age of the patients at time of revision surgery was 81.5 years (range 70–94, SD ± 6.9). The control group evaluating the clinical outcome using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) also received a cemented primary total hip arthroplasty using the same implants. A retrospective clinical and radiological review was carried out at a mean follow-up of 68.5 months (range 30–103, SD ± 17.7).

Results

Of the 27 patients, 6 had died at the time of the latest review, with the posterior lip augmentation device still in situ and without reported further dislocation after PLAD application. In 2 of the remaining 21 patients recurrent dislocation occurred, thus a subsequent revision of respective implants had to be performed to achieve persistent joint stability. At latest follow-up no deep infection or implant loosening occurred.

Conclusion

Surgical treatment of recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip replacement using a posterior lip augmentation device is a safe and effective procedure which can lead to a secondary stabilization of the total hip arthroplasty in about 90 % of the patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Masonis JL, Bourne RB (2002) Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop 405:46–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Woo YG, Morrey BF (1982) Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 64(9):1295–1306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Turner RS (1994) Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocations. Clin Orthop 301:196–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Joshi A, Lee CM, Markovic L, Vlatis G, Murphy JCM (1998) Prognosis of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:17–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barrack RL (2003) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 11(2):89–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J, Phillips CB, Mahomed NN, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA (2001) Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(11):1622–1629

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wera GD, Ting NT, Moric M, Paprosky WG, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ (2012) Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(5):710–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gholve PA, Lovell ME, Naqui SZ (2006) Minimal surgical approach for recurrent hip dislocation using the posterior lip augmentation device for the Charnley hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6):865–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paterno SA, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS (1997) The influence of patient-related factors and the position of the acetabular component on the rate of dislocation after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(8):1202–1210

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Charissoux JL, Asloum Y, Marcheix PS (2014) Surgical management of recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 100(1 Suppl):25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prokopetz JJ, Losina E, Bliss RL, Wright J, Baron JA, Katz JN (2012) Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC 15(13):251

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau E, Ellis J (2004) Modular revision for recurrent dislocation of primary or revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:424–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Toomey SD, Hopper RH Jr, McAuley JP, Engh CA (2001) Modular component exchange for treatment of recurrent dislocation of a total hip replacement in selected patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1529–1533

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, Wan Z (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:119–127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wines AP, McNicol D (2006) Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:696–701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McConway J, O’Brien S, Doran E, Archbold P, Beverland D (2007) The use of a posterior lip augmentation device for a revision of recurrent dislocation after primary cemented Charnley/Charnley Elite total hip replacement: results at a mean follow-up of six years and nine months. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(12):1581–1585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cobb TK, Morrey BF, Ilstrup DM (1996) The elevated-rim acetabular liner in total hip arthroplasty: relationship to postoperative dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 78(1):80–86

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cobb TK, Morrey BF, Ilstrup DM (1997) Effect of the elevated-rim acetabular liner on loosening after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(9):1361–1364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Enocson AG, Minde J, Svensson O (2006) Socket wall addition device in the treatment of recurrent hip prosthesis dislocation: good outcome in 12 patients followed for 4.5 (1–9) years. Acta Orthop 77(1):87–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Schmidl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest concerning this article.

Additional information

S. Schmidl and O. Jakobs contributed equally and thus are shared first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmidl, S., Jakobs, O., Guenther, D. et al. Effective prevention of recurrent dislocation following primary cemented Endo-MarkIII/SP2 total hip arthroplasty using a posterior lip augmentation device. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 579–583 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2415-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2415-y

Keywords

Navigation