A systematic review on revision total hip arthroplasty employing the direct anterior approach.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: Declarations. Conflict of interest: Authors Cord Peters, Erika Dopson, and Ashton Goldman declare they have no financial interests. Jeremy Ross is a paid consultant with Depuy Synthes. IRB approval: The study protocol was approved by the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Consent for publication: The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. I am a military service member. This work was prepared as part of my official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.’ Title 17 U.S.C. 101 defines a United States Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. 7. J Arthroplasty. 2026 Mar;41(3):876-882. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.07.014. Epub 2025 Jul 12. Proximal Femoral Replacement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A 20-Year Experience. Meissner N(1), Carstens MF(1), Larson DR(2), Bedard NA(1), Hannon CP(1), Abdel MP(1). Author information: (1)Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. (2)Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a salvage procedure in revision total hip arthroplasty for extensive femoral bone loss. This study aimed to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, patient mortality, and clinical outcomes of PFR for non-oncologic indications at mid-term follow-up (five years). METHODS: We reviewed 61 PFRs for nononcologic indications performed between 2000 and 2022 at a single academic institution. The most common indications were periprosthetic fracture and reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (each 33%), followed by aseptic loosening (31%) and dislocation (3%). Femoral bone loss was severe in all patients, with 49% Paprosky type IIIb defects and 51% Paprosky type IV defects. Constrained liners were used in 26 patients (43%), standard head-liner constructs were used in 25 patients (41%), and dual-mobility constructs in 10 patients (16%). The mean patient age was 77 years, with 67% being women. The mean follow-up was five years. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidence of revision for aseptic loosening was 2%. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any revision of the PFR was 8%. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (N = 8), followed by periprosthetic joint infection (N = 4), periprosthetic fracture (N = 2), and aseptic loosening (N = 1). Among the 10 patients who dislocated, eight patients (80%) underwent revision to a constrained liner at a mean of two years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 30%. The mean Harris Hip Score increased from 46 preoperatively to 78 at five years. The 2- and 5-year mortality rates were 15 and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this complex cohort of 61 PFRs for nononcologic revision total hip arthroplasties, aseptic loosening was rare. However, revisions and reoperations for any reason were prominent, with dislocation being the primary failure mode. In addition, the 5-year mortality rate remained high at nearly one in two. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study. Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.07.014