Non-standard clinical case: a 13-year journey from primary hip replacement to a custom 3D implant

Relevance: The uniqueness of the clinical case lies in the prolonged dynamic 13-year observation of a patient with THA who, after endoprosthetics, underwent a whole range of surgical interventions and complications. She suffered various types of osteosynthesis, fractures of installed implants and their dislocations, periprosthetic infection, and installation of a spacer. As a result of numerous operations, the patient developed a pronounced deficiency of bone tissue in the lower third of the operated hip with a significant bone defect. As a possible effective option for its replenishment, a 3D personalized revision endoprosthesis leg with a partial bone mantle was used.

Case description: A 64-year-old female patient, 2 years after THA of the right hip joint, with good clinical and radiological results, received a Vancouver type “C” periprosthetic fracture followed by osteosynthesis of the femoral fracture with a plate and Cable Ready cables. The fall subsequently resulted in a fracture of the right femur and the fixation plate, with a stable cup of the installed endoprosthesis. Osteosynthesis was performed with an NCB plate, the stem was replaced with a Wagner Rev.SL, and the tribological pair was replaced. After 2 years, removal of the unstable NCB plate due to a healed hip fracture. After 3 years, there was septic loosening of the endoprosthesis leg with its removal and installation of a 3D spacer, its dislocation on the day of suture removal due to non-compliance with the motor regime. After the infection was relieved, a 3D personalized leg was made for the patient. During preoperative preparation, the patient experiences a fracture of the spacer. Final surgical treatment: in one surgical session, a broken spacer was removed, an anti-protrusion ring with a cup of the Avantage dual mobility system, a personalized 3D implant of the endoprosthesis leg, an NCB plate, and Cable Ready cables were installed. In the lower sections, the leg is fixed in the femoral canal with cement. In the upper parts of the leg there is osseointegration with the bone. This technique made it possible to reinforce the femur intramedullary, compensate for the existing bone deficiency in the lower third of the femur, restore the range of motion in the joint, minimizing the risks of dislocations with double mobility, and provide support to the limb. The total follow-up period for the patient was more than 13 years.

Conclusion: The presented clinical case illustrates one of the methods of a possible personalized approach to replenishing the existing deficiency of bone tissue of the lower third of the femur, which arose as a result of multiple surgical interventions on the hip joint associated with coxarthrosis and endoprosthetics.

1. Tsed A.N., Mushtin N.E., Dulaev A.K., Schmeljew A.V. [Mid-Term Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Nonunions in Long-Term Hemodialysis Patients]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2021;27(4):21-30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-1653 (in Russian)

2. Shubnyakov I.I., Tikhilov R.M., Nikolaev N.S., Grigoricheva L.G., Ovsyankin A.V., Cherny A.Zh., Drozdova P.V., Denisov A.O., Veber E.V., Kuz’mina I.V. [Epidemiology of Primary Hip Arthroplasty: Report from Register of Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2017;23(2):81-101. (in Russian). DOI: 10.21823/2311-2905-2017-23-2-81-101 (in Russian)

3. Chua M.J., Hart A.J., Mittal R., Harris I.A., Xuan W., Naylor J.M. Early mobilisation after total hip or knee arthroplasty: A multicentre prospective observational study. Observational Study PLoS One. 2017; 6(27);12(6).

4. Karbysheva S., Renz N., Yermak K., Cabric S., Trampuz A. New Methods in the Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2019;25(4):56-63. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-4-56-63. (in Russian)

5. Kocish A.A., Bozhkova S.A. Current state of the problem of treating patients with recurrent periprosthetic infection of the hip joint (Literature review). Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2020; 3 (41). DOI: 10.17238/issn2226-2016.2020.3.23-30 (in Russian)

6. Proceedings jf the Second International Concensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection/.Transl. into Russian; ed. By

7. Day C.W., Costi K., Pannach S., Atkins G.J, Hofstaetter J.G., Callary S.A., Nelson R., Howie D.W, Solomon L.B. Long-Term Outcomes of Staged Revision Surgery for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection of Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Clin Med. Published online 2021 Dec 27. 2022 Jan; 11(1): 122. doi: 10.3390/jcm11010122

8. Pincus D., Jenkinson R., Paterson M., Leroux T., Ravi B. Association Between Surgical Approach and Major Surgical Complications in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty. JAMA. 2020; 323(11): 1070. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.0785

9. Boelch S. P., Rüeckl K., Streck L.E., Szewczykowski V., Weißenberger M., Jakuscheit A., Rudert M. Diagnosis of Chronic Infection at Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision Is a Question of Definition. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 8442435. Published online. 2021; 11(19). doi: 10.1155/2021/8442435

10. Bozic K.J., Kamath A.F., Ong K., Lau E., Kurtz S., Chan V. et al. Comparative Epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: Failed THA Poses Greater Clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2131-2138. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4078-8

11. Dobson P. , Reed F., Michael R. Prevention of infection in primary THA and TKA. EFORT Open Reviews, 2020; 5(10): 604–613. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.5.200004 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179820. eCollection 2017.

12. Lichstein P., T. Gehrke, A. Lombardi, C. Romano, I. Stockley, G. Babis, J. Bialecki, L. Bucsi, X. Cai, L. Cao, B. de Beaubien, J. Erhardt, S. Goodman, W. Jiranek, P. Keogh, D. Lewallen, P. Manner, W. Marczynski, JB. Mason, K. Mulhall, W. Paprosky, P. Patel, F. Piccaluga, G. Polkowski, L. Pulido, I. Stockley, J. Suarez, F. Thorey, R. Tikhilov, JD. Velazquez, H. Hinkler. Onestage vs two-stage exchange. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29:108-111.

13. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2021 Annual Report. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2021.

14. Sereda A.P., Smetanin S.M. [Dislocations after Hip Arthroplasty (Review)]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2020;26(2):180-200. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2020-26-2-180-200. (in Russian)

15. Parvizi J., Adeli B., Zmistowski B., Restpero C., Greenwald A.S. Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Current Knowledge//J Bone Joint Surg Am.2012 №94P e104(1-9).

16. Urish K.L., DeMuth P.W., Kwan B.W., Craft D.W., Ma D., Haider H. et al. Antibiotic-tolerant staphylococcus aureus biofilm persists on arthroplasty materials. Clin Orthop Relat. 2016; 474:1649–1656.

17. Wang Q., Goswami K., Kuo F.C., Xu C. et al. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection: the rate and reason for the attrition after the first stage. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2749‐2756.doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.021

18. Yacovelli S., Parvizi J. Who Should Manage Periprosthetic Joint Infection? The Case for a Multidisciplinary Approach. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii. Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):28-32. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-4-28-32

19. Вurastero G., Alessio-Mazzola M, Cavagnaro L, Chiarlone F, Carrega G, c Giorgio Capello A, Lovisolo S, Felli L. Conservative two-stage revision with primary components of infected total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of survival, clinical and radiographic outcomes. Published online 2020 Oct 1. PLoS One. 2020; 15(10): 0239981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239981

20. Charette R.S., Melnic C.M. Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. Published online 2018 Jun 9. 2018 Sep; 11(3): 332–340. doi: 10.1007/s12178018-9495-y

21. Natsuhara K.M., Shelton T.J., Meehan J.P., Lum Z.C. Mortality during total hip periprosthetic joint infection. J. Arthroplast. 2019;34:S337– S342. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.12.024

22. Petis S.M., Abdel M.P., Perry K.I., Mabry T.M., Hanssen A.D., BerryD.J. Long-Term Results of a 2-Stage Exchange Protocol for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in 164 Hips. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Jan 2;101(1):74-84. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01103

23. Aprato A., Giachino M., Bedino P., Mellano D., Piana R., Masse A. Management of Paprosky type three B acetabular defects by custom‐made components: early results.Int Orthop. 2019;43(1):117‐122

24. Durand-Hil M., Henckel J., Di Laura A., Hart A. Can custom 3D printed implants successfully reconstruct massive acetabular defects? A 3DCT assessment. J Orthop Res. 2020 Dec; 38(12):2640-2648. doi: 10.1002/jor.24752. Epub 2020 Jun 5.

25. Artyukh V.A. and others. Diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infection of the hip joint. Guide to hip surgery. RNIITO named after R.R. Vreden. St. Petersburg; 2015. 208–256. (in Russian).

26. Bozhkova S.A., Kasimova A.R., Tikhilov R.M., Polyakova E.M., Rukina A.N., Shabanova V.V., Liventsov V.N. [Adverse Trends in the Etiology of Orthopedic Infection: Results of 6-Year Monitoring of the Structure and Resistance of Leading Pathogens.]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2018;24(4): 20-31. DOI: 10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-4-20-31. (in Russian).

27. Craig A., King S.W., Van Duren S.W., Veysi V.T., Jain S , Palan J. Articular spacers in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip and the knee. EFORT Open Rev. 2022 Feb; 15;7(2):137-152. doi: 10.1530/EOR-21-0037

28. Barreira P., Leite P., Neves P., Soares D., Sousa R. Preventing mechanical complications of hip spacer implantation : technical tips and pearls. From Department of Orthopaedics, Centro Hospitalar do Porto – Hospital de Santo António. Acta Orthopædica Belgica. Porto. Portugal. 2015; 2:81.

29. Spangehl M.J., Masri B.A., O’Connell J.X., Duncan C.P. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1999; 81:672-683.

30. Trampuz A., Piper K.E., Jacobson M.J. et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prosthesese for diagnosis of infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 357(7):654-663.

31. Murylev V., Kukovenko G., Elizarov P. et al. Periprosthetic infection during hip arthroplasty // Vrach. – 2018; 29 (3): 17–22. DOI: 10.29296/258773052018-03-04 (in Russian)

32. Faschingbauer M., Reichel H., Bieger R., Kappe T.Mechanical complications with one hundred and thirty eight (antibiotic-laden) cementspacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. –2015;39(5):989-994. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2636-z

33. Anderson M.B., Arciola C.R., Sarvanan S.A., Campoccia D., Certain L., Diaz-Ledezma C. et al. General Assembly, Treatment, Multidisciplinary Issues: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(2S):S239-S243. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.075

34. Li C., Renz N., Trampuz A, Ojeda-Thies C. Twenty common errors in the diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection Int Orthop. 2020; Jan;44(1):3-14. doi: 10.1007/s00264-019-04426-7. Epub 2019 Oct 22.

35. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2019. Available from: https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/shpr/r/VGR_Annual-report_SHAR_2019_EN_Digital-pages_FINAL-ryxaMBUWZ_.pdf.

36. Parvizi J., Gehrke T. Proceedings of the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection. Philadelphia: International Consensus Group LLC. 2018.

37. Edward M. Schwarz, Alex C. McLaren, Thomas P. Sculco, Barry Brause, Mathias Bostrom, Stephen L. Kates, Javad Parvizi et al. Hospital for Special Surgery 2019 Biofilm Symposium Workgroup. J Orthop Res. 2021 Feb;39(2):227-239. doi: 10.1002/jor.24616. Epub 2020 Mar 2.

38. Qu X.,Zhai Z.,Wu C., Jin F., Li H.,Wang L. Preoperative aspiration culture for preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip or knee arthroplasty.J Clin.Microbial.2013;51(11): 3830-3834. doi:10.1128/SCM.01467-13

39. Schwotzer N., Wahl P., Fracheboud D., Gautier E., Chuard С. J Clin Microbiol. Optimal culture incubation time in orthopedic device-associated infections: a retrospective analysis of prolonged 14-day incubation. 2014; 52(1):61-6. DOI:10.1128/JCM.01766-13

40. Parvizi J., Fassihi S.C., Enayatollahi M.A. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection following hip and knee arthroplasty.Orthop Clin North. 2016; 47:505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2016.03.001

41. Ford A., Holzmeister A., Rees H., Pelich B. Characterization of outcomes of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. J Arthroplasty. 2018; https://doi.org/10:1016./j.arth.002018.000002.000043.

42. Charette R.S., Melnic C.M. Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. Published online 2018 Jun 9. 2018 Sep; 11(3): 332–340. doi: 10.1007/s12178018-9495-y

43. Shubnyakov I.I., Tikhilov R.M., Denisov A.O., Akhmedilov M.A., Cherny A.Zh., Totoev Z.A., Javadov A.A., Karpukhin A.S., Muravyeva Yu.V. [What Has Changed in the Structure of Revision Hip Arthroplasty?]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2019;25(4):9-27. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-4-9-27 (in Russian)

44. Galley J., Sutter R., Stern C., Filli L., Rahm S., Pfirrmann A. Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection Using MRI with Metal Artifact Reduction at 1.5 T Radiology 2020; 00:1–11 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191901