Dislocation rate after hip arthroplasty due to metastatic bone disease: a retrospective cohort study evaluating the postoperative dislocation risk across different articulating solutions


  • Afrim Iljazi Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet
  • Michala Skovlund Sørensen Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0123-2666
  • Thea Hovgaard Ladegaard Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet
  • Søren Overgaard Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-4787
  • Michael Mørk Petersen Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2324-6420




Arthroplasty, Constrained liner, Dislocation, Dual mobility, Hemiarthroplasty, Hip, Metastatic bone disease, Pathological fractures


Background and purpose: Joint stability after hip replacement (HR) in patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) is of special importance. Dislocation is the second leading cause of implant revision in HR, while survival after MBD surgery is poor with an expected 1-year survival of around 40%. As few studies have investigated the dislocation risk across different articulation solutions in MBD, we conducted a retrospective study on primary HR for patients with MBD treated in our department.
Patients and methods: The primary outcome is the 1-year cumulative incidence of dislocation. We included patients with MBD who received HR at our department in 2003–2019. We excluded patients with partial pelvic reconstruction, total femoral replacement, and revision surgery. We assessed the incidence of dislocation with competing risk analysis with death and implant removal as competing risks.
Results: We included 471 patients. Median follow-up was 6.5 months. The patients received 248 regular total hip arthroplasties (THAs), 117 hemiarthroplasties, 70 constrained liners, and 36 dual mobility liners. Major bone resection (MBR), defined as resection below the lesser trochanter, was performed in 63%. The overall 1-year cumulative incidence of dislocation was 6.2% (95% CI 4.0–8.3). Dislocation stratified by articulating surface was 6.9% (CI 3.7–10) for regular THA, 6.8% (CI 2.3–11) for hemiarthroplasty, 2.9% (CI 0.0–6.8) for constrained liner, and 5.6% (CI 0.0–13) for dual mobility liners. There was no significant difference between patients with and without MBR (p = 0.5).
Conclusion: The 1-year cumulative incidence of dislocation is 6.2% in patients with MBD. Further studies are needed to determine any real benefits of specific articulations on the risk of postoperative dislocation in patients with MBD.


Download data is not yet available.


Van Steenbergen L N, Mäkelä K T, Kärrholm J, Rolfson O, Overgaard S, Furnes O, et al. Total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA): comparison of patient and procedure characteristics in 475,685 cases. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(1): 15-22. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1843875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1843875

Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. National annual report 2021. Available from: http://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DHR-aarsrapport-2021_Offentliggoerelse.pdf.

Philippeau J M, Durand J M, Carret J P, Leclercq S, Waast D, Gouin F. Dual mobility design use in preventing total hip replacement dislocation following tumor resection. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96(1): 2-8. doi: 10.1016/j.rcot.2009.12.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.015

Gusho C A, Clayton B, Mehta N, Colman M W, Gitelis S, Blank A T. Survival and outcomes of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur for primary and non-primary bone tumors: single institutional results. J Orthop 2021; 25:145-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.05.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2021.05.008

Chandrasekar C R, Grimer R J, Carter S R, Tillman R M, Abudu A, Buckley L. Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(1): 108-12. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20448

Harvey N, Ahlmann E R, Allison D C, Wang L, Menendez L R. Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470(3): 684-91. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2038-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2038-0

Hovgaard T B, Horstmann P F, Petersen M M, Sørensen M S. Patient survival following joint replacement due to metastatic bone disease: comparison of overall patient and prostheses survival between cohorts treated in two different time-periods. Acta Oncol 2018; 57(6): 839-48. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1420910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2017.1420910

Skovlund Sørensen M, Hindsø K, Frederik Horstmann P, Troelsen A, Dalsgaard S, Fog T, et al. Incidence of surgical interventions for metastatic bone disease in the extremities: a population-based cohort study. Acta Oncol 2019; 58(4): 456-62. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1549368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2018.1549368

Karnofsky D A, Abelmann W H, Craver L F, Burchenal J H. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma: with particular reference to bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer 1948; 1(4): 634-56. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(194811)1:4%3C634::AIDCNCR2820010410%3E3.0.CO;2-L. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(194811)1:4<634::AID-CNCR2820010410>3.0.CO;2-L

Ranstam J, Robertsson O. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 2010; 81(1): 10-14. doi: 10.3109/17453671003587168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453671003587168

Puchner S E, Funovics P T, Hipfl C, Dominkus M, Windhager R, Hofstaetter J G. Incidence and management of hip dislocation in tumour patients with a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur. Int Orthop 2014; 38(8): 1677-84. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2376-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2376-0

Klemt C, Chen W, Bounajem G, Tirumala V, Xiong L, Kwon Y M. Outcome and risk factors of failures associated with revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142(8): 1801-7. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03814-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03814-2

Wedin R, Bauer H C F. Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87(12): 1653-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B12.16629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B12.16629

Menendez L R, Ahlmann E R, Kermani C, Gotha H. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 450: 46-51. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000229332.91158.05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000229332.91158.05

Ahlmann E R, Menendez L R, Kermani C, Gotha H. Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88(6): 790-5. Doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17519

Bischel O E, Böhm P M. The use of a femoral revision stem in the treatment of primary or secondary bone tumours of the proximal femur: a prospective study of 31 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92(10): 1435-41. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24024

Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J. Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 450:164-71. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39

Ilyas I, Pant R, Kurar A, Moreau P G, Younge D A. Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors. Int Orthop 2002; 26(3): 170-3. doi: 10.1007/s00264-002-0335-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-002-0335-7

Sokolovski V A, Voloshin V P, Aliev M D, Zubikov V S, Saravanan S A, Martynenko D V, et al. Total hip replacement for proximal femoral tumours: our midterm results. Int Orthop 2006; 30(5): 399-402. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0124-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0124-9

Quinn R H, Drenga J. Perioperative morbidity and mortality after reconstruction for metastatic tumors of the proximal femur and acetabulum. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21(2): 227-32. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.04.032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.04.032

Nilsson J, Gustafson P. Surgery for metastatic lesions of the femur: good outcome after 245 operations in 216 patients. Injury 2008; 39(4): 404-10. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.07.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.07.006

Hailer N P, Weiss R J, Stark A, Kärrholm J. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis: an analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2012; 83(5): 442-8. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.733919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.733919

Byström S, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin L I. Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation: a study of 42,987 primary hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand 2003; 74(5): 514-24. doi: 10.1080/00016470310017893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310017893

Lindgren V, Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Wretenberg P. The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty: a study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register of 90,662 total hip replacements with 3 different cemented prostheses. Acta Orthop 2012; 83(6): 559. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.742394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.742394

Wegrzyn J, Malatray M, Al-Qahtani T, Pibarot V, Confavreux C, Freyer G. Total hip arthroplasty for periacetabular metastatic disease: an original technique of reconstruction according to the Harrington classification. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(8): 2546-55. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.096

Jawad M U, Brien E W. Proximal femoral reconstruction with a constrained acetabulum in oncologic patients. Orthopedics 2014; 37(2). doi: 10.3928/01477447-20140124-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20140124-24

Bagsby D T, Wurtz L D. Effectiveness of constrained liner use during Harrington hip reconstruction in oncology patient. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(4): 1250-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.038

Bue M, Jakobsen S S, Barckman J, Tábori-Jensen S. Dislocation rate, revisions and other complications of primary cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a single-center cohort study of 743 unselected hips with a mean 2.7-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142(12). doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04252-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04252-w

Enocson A, Tidermark J, Törnkvist H, Lapidus L J. Dislocation of hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture: better outcome after the anterolateral approach in a prospective cohort study on 739 consecutive hips. Acta Orthop 2009; 79(2): 211-17. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014996

Charette R S, Sloan M, Lee G C. Not all hip arthroplasties are created equal: increased complications and re-admissions after total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures compared with osteoarthritis. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(6_Supple_B): 84-90. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1427.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2018-1427.R1

Additional Files



How to Cite

Iljazi, A., Sørensen, M. S., Ladegaard, T. H., Overgaard, S., & Petersen, M. M. (2023). Dislocation rate after hip arthroplasty due to metastatic bone disease: a retrospective cohort study evaluating the postoperative dislocation risk across different articulating solutions. Acta Orthopaedica, 94, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.10311





Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >>