ABSTRACT
There remains confusion in the literature with regard to the spinopelvic relationship, and its contribution to ideal acetabular component position. Critical assessment of the literature has been limited by use of conflicting terminology and definitions of new concepts that further confuse the topic. In 2017, the concept of a Hip-Spine Workgroup was created with the first meeting held at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Annual Meeting in 2018. The goal of this workgroup was to first help standardize terminology across the literature so that as a topic, multiple groups could produce literature that is immediately understandable and applicable. This consensus review from the Hip-Spine Workgroup aims to simplify the spinopelvic relationship, offer hip surgeons a concise summary of available literature, and select common terminology approved by both hip surgeons and spine surgeons for future research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:808-816.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Pelvic Bones/physiology , Spine/physiology , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/instrumentation , Humans , Patient Selection , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Range of Motion, Articular , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
AIMS: While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. RESULTS: Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. CONCLUSION: Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817-823.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Bone Malalignment/etiology , Hip Dislocation/etiology , Joint Instability/etiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Preoperative Care/methods , Spine/physiopathology , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/instrumentation , Bone Malalignment/diagnosis , Bone Malalignment/physiopathology , Follow-Up Studies , Hip Dislocation/diagnosis , Hip Dislocation/prevention & control , Humans , Joint Instability/diagnosis , Joint Instability/prevention & control , Matched-Pair Analysis , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Radiography , Recurrence , Reoperation/instrumentation , Reoperation/methods , Retrospective Studies , Spine/diagnostic imaging , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS: The routine use of dual-mobility (DM) acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) may not be cost-effective, but an increasing number of patients undergoing THA have a coexisting spinal disorder, which increases the risk of postoperative instability, and these patients may benefit from DM articulations. This study seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of DM components as an alternative to standard articulations in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using DM components in patients who would be at high risk for dislocation within one year of THA. Direct and indirect costs of dislocation, incremental costs of using DM components, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values, and the probabilities of dislocation were derived from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was established with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine the impact of variation. RESULTS: In the base case, patients with a spinal deformity were modelled to have an 8% probability of dislocation following primary THA based on published clinical ranges. Sensitivity analysis revealed that, at its current average price ($1000), DM is cost-effective if it reduces the probability of dislocation to 0.9%. The threshold cost at which DM ceased being cost-effective was $1180, while the ICER associated with a DM THA was $71 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that under specific clinical and economic thresholds, DM components are a cost-effective form of treatment for patients with spinal deformity who are at high risk of dislocation after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1297-1302.
