The impact of acetabular revision in revision total hip arthroplasty for a Vancouver B2 fracture requiring a change of femoral component.

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the necessity of revising the acetabular component in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with a Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) who require revision of the femoral component. The hypothesis was that revision of both the acetabular and femoral components and using a dual-mobility acetabular component would provide a lower postoperative risk of dislocation, without increasing perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Methods: Data were retrospectively analyzed from a continuously gathered database. We included 150 revisions, performed between January 2015 and December 2022, in 150 patients, with 81 revisions limited to only the femoral component and 69 involving revision of both components. This resulted, after surgery, in 60 patients having a simple-mobility acetabular component and 90 having a dual-mobility component. The mean age of the patients was 79.7 years (SD 10.1), and 98 were female (65.3%). The mean follow-up was 31 months (SD 2.3).

Results: There were no significant differences between those in whom only the femoral component was revised and those in whom both components were revised with the use of a dual-mobility acetabular component for the rate of intraoperative complications, postoperative mortality, blood loss, the requirement of a blood transfusion, medical complications, dislocation (11/81 in the femoral component-only group vs 6/69 in the femoral + acetabular component revision group) or the overall need for reoperation at the final follow-up. Patients were at a significantly higher risk for dislocation when a simple-mobility component was retained (18.3% (n = 11) vs 6.7% (n = 6) for dual-mobility implants; p = 0.036). The revision rate prompted by postoperative instability was significantly higher in patients in whom a simple-mobility acetabular component was retained at revision (10% (n = 6) vs 0%; p = 0.002).

Conclusion: Based on these results, concurrent revision of the acetabular component was not associated with a higher rate of mortality or increased morbidity and patients in whom a dual-mobility acetabular component was used were significantly less prone to dislocation. We thus recommend routine revision of the acetabular component in favour of a dual-mobility component for patients sustaining a Vancouver B2 PFF requiring revision of the femoral component if their initial THA included a simple-mobility acetabular component.