Freedom Constrained Liner for the Treatment and Prevention of Dislocation in Total Hip Arthroplasty. (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Karvonen, M.; Karvonen, H.; Seppänen, M.; Liukas, A.; Koivisto, M.; Mäkelä, K. T.
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of surgery. Volume 106:Number 2(2017)
• Page Start: 165
• Page End: 172
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Constrained liner -- freedom constrained liner -- THA dislocation -- complications after THA -- recurrent dislocation; Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1177/1457496916660035
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1457-4969

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Dislocation is one of the most common complications following total hip arthroplasty. The aim of our study was to assess failure rate of the Biomet Freedom constrained liner (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) either in revision surgery for recurrent dislocation, or as a preventive method in high dislocation risk patients. Patients and Methods: We assessed retrospectively 105 consecutive surgical procedures in 103 patients where a Freedom constrained liner or cup was used in Turku University Hospital over a 7-year period from 2007 to 2014. The mechanical failure rate of the device was assessed based on medical records. The average age of the patients was 73.4 years. The number of male patients was 53 (51%). Mean follow-up time was 2.5 years. The association between failure of the device and potential risk factors—age, gender, indication, and approach—was analyzed with logistic regression. Results were expressed by odd ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The mechanical failure rate of the Freedom device was 6 out of 105 (5.7%). None of the 11 preventive primary THAs against dislocation failed, 4 out of 52 (7.7%) preventive revision THAs against dislocation failed, and 2 out of 42 (4.8%) of the treated dislocation cases failed. Four out of six failures were dislocations due to impingement and failure of the locking mechanism. Two liners failed because of loosening. The risk factors assessed were not associated with failure of the device. Interpretation: We found out that the mechanical failure rate of a Freedom constrained device was low. These results encourage us to continue using the device.