The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026
"Two Strikes, You're Out": Contemporary Revision Patterns Following Instability After Posterior and Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Driscoll Daniel A, Burgio Carmelo, Viggiano Michael, Yared Tsion, Trenchfield Delano, Sokrab Ruba, El-Hassan Mohammed, Vigdorchik Jonathan M, Sculco Peter K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dislocation remains one of the most challenging complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies suggested that three or more dislocations were a threshold for revision; however, these data predate contemporary implants and modern surgical approaches. We used a contemporary cohort of primary THA patients to evaluate the relationship between dislocation recurrence, timing of instability, and subsequent revision for instability.
METHODS: There were 40,315 patients who underwent primary THA at our institution from 2016 to 2024. Among these patients, those who sustained a dislocation event were included. Keyword and diagnosis code search were performed to identify patients, and charts were reviewed to confirm dislocation. A total of 285 patients (0.7%) were included at a mean 5.7-year follow-up, of whom 242 (84.9%) ultimately underwent revision for instability. Instability was categorized by recurrence (one, two, or ≥ three dislocations) and timing ([early ≤ 90] versus late [greater than 90 days)]). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify factors independently associated with risk of revision.
RESULTS: Revision risk increased sharply with recurrence, rising from 69.1% after one dislocation to 93.9% after two and 98.5% after three or more. Patients who had two dislocations had significantly greater odds of revision than those who had one (odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 3.28 to 20.49, P < 0.001), while risk did not significantly increase beyond the second dislocation. Late dislocations were more likely to result in revision than early events (97.0 versus 74.9%, P < 0.001) and remained independently associated with revision (odds ratio 7.76, 95% confidence interval 2.46 to 35.10, P = 0.002). The association between recurrence, timing, and revision risk was consistent across both approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary THA practice, revision frequently occurred after a second dislocation, and late dislocations were more likely to require revision than early events. Future multicenter studies are needed to further refine instability management strategies.
METHODS: There were 40,315 patients who underwent primary THA at our institution from 2016 to 2024. Among these patients, those who sustained a dislocation event were included. Keyword and diagnosis code search were performed to identify patients, and charts were reviewed to confirm dislocation. A total of 285 patients (0.7%) were included at a mean 5.7-year follow-up, of whom 242 (84.9%) ultimately underwent revision for instability. Instability was categorized by recurrence (one, two, or ≥ three dislocations) and timing ([early ≤ 90] versus late [greater than 90 days)]). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify factors independently associated with risk of revision.
RESULTS: Revision risk increased sharply with recurrence, rising from 69.1% after one dislocation to 93.9% after two and 98.5% after three or more. Patients who had two dislocations had significantly greater odds of revision than those who had one (odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 3.28 to 20.49, P < 0.001), while risk did not significantly increase beyond the second dislocation. Late dislocations were more likely to result in revision than early events (97.0 versus 74.9%, P < 0.001) and remained independently associated with revision (odds ratio 7.76, 95% confidence interval 2.46 to 35.10, P = 0.002). The association between recurrence, timing, and revision risk was consistent across both approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary THA practice, revision frequently occurred after a second dislocation, and late dislocations were more likely to require revision than early events. Future multicenter studies are needed to further refine instability management strategies.