The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026
Outcomes of Conversion of Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty to Total Hip Arthroplasty With Retention of the Acetabular Component.
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.
Antonioli Sophia S, Kennedy Mitchell F, Bussey-Sutton Cameron R, Marwin Scott E, Schwarzkopf Ran, Macaulay William
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Complications of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) may require conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). While well-fixed acetabular components are often retained during conversion, data on implant survival and associated risks are limited. This study evaluated implant-related outcomes, survivorship, and complications in patients who undergo HRA to THA conversion with acetabular component retention.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 40 patients having undergone conversion from HRA to THA was conducted. Patients were included if the original HRA acetabular component was retained, provided they had at least 1 year of clinical follow-up. Demographics, perioperative variables, implant characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected via chart review. The mean time to conversion was 8.2 years (range, 0.1 to 14.2), with an average of 4.1 years of follow-up (range, 1.0 to 10.9). Common indications for conversion included metallosis (40.0%), mechanical loosening (32.5%), and periprosthetic fracture (22.5%). Most cases (97.5%) were converted to dual-mobility constructs.
RESULTS: There were six patients (15.0%) who underwent subsequent reoperation following conversion, including three for infection, one for dislocation, and two for aseptic stem loosening. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an all-cause revision-free survivorship of 90.0% at 1 year and 81.2% at 10 years, with aseptic survivorship of 88.5% and acetabular component survivorship of 100% through final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Conversion of HRA to THA with retention of a well-fixed acetabular component and conversion to a dual-mobility construct provides durable survivorship up to 10 years (mean follow-up: 4.1 years). However, the rates of periprosthetic joint infection and reoperation are more aligned with those seen in revision THA than primary THA, emphasizing the need for careful patient selection and transparent preoperative counseling. These findings highlight that while this approach can be an effective option for failed hip resurfacing, appropriate caution is warranted to mitigate the elevated risks of infection and reoperation in this cohort.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 40 patients having undergone conversion from HRA to THA was conducted. Patients were included if the original HRA acetabular component was retained, provided they had at least 1 year of clinical follow-up. Demographics, perioperative variables, implant characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected via chart review. The mean time to conversion was 8.2 years (range, 0.1 to 14.2), with an average of 4.1 years of follow-up (range, 1.0 to 10.9). Common indications for conversion included metallosis (40.0%), mechanical loosening (32.5%), and periprosthetic fracture (22.5%). Most cases (97.5%) were converted to dual-mobility constructs.
RESULTS: There were six patients (15.0%) who underwent subsequent reoperation following conversion, including three for infection, one for dislocation, and two for aseptic stem loosening. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an all-cause revision-free survivorship of 90.0% at 1 year and 81.2% at 10 years, with aseptic survivorship of 88.5% and acetabular component survivorship of 100% through final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Conversion of HRA to THA with retention of a well-fixed acetabular component and conversion to a dual-mobility construct provides durable survivorship up to 10 years (mean follow-up: 4.1 years). However, the rates of periprosthetic joint infection and reoperation are more aligned with those seen in revision THA than primary THA, emphasizing the need for careful patient selection and transparent preoperative counseling. These findings highlight that while this approach can be an effective option for failed hip resurfacing, appropriate caution is warranted to mitigate the elevated risks of infection and reoperation in this cohort.