Fifty-five patients undergoing isolated acetabular revisions in fifty-seven hips were available for review. In thirty-three of fifty-seven hips there was no significant acetabular deficiency; of the remaining twenty-four hips twenty underwent allograft reconstruction and four autogenous bone grafting. Mean follow-up was four years with a range of three to seven years; there have been no femoral loosening, and three further surgical procedures for hip instability. All acetabular components at last review were soundly fixed with the exception of one patient who underwent excision arthroplasty at twelve months for deep infection. The purpose of this study was to review the functional outcome and the fate of the femoral stem and revised acetabular component following isolated ace-tabular revision. Findings of the current study demonstrate that isolated acetabular revision does not compromise the final functional nor radiographic outcome in acetabular revision in appropriately selected patients; the fate of the femoral component is not adversely influenced by this procedure. There is no need to remove the femoral component at the time of acetabular revision if the femoral component is well fixed and stable by pre- and intra-operative assessment. Prospectively entered data on fifty-seven hips (fifty-five patients) who have undergone isolated acetabular revision without femoral revision was available for review. All patients were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively on an annual basis by means of physical examination, x-ray, SF-36 and WOMAC questionnaires. In thirty-three of fifty-seven hips there was no significant acetabular deficiency; of the remaining twenty-four hips, one had a segmental defect, thirteen had a cavitary defect and ten had a combined segmental and cavitary defect. Osteolysis existed in the proximal femur of two hips. Bone grafting in twenty-four hips consisted of morselized allograft in nine; combined structural and morselized allograft used in eleven and autogenous bone used in four acetabular defects. Autogenous bone grafting was done in two femoral osteolytic lesions. Mean follow-up was four years with a range of three to seven years. The mean duration of arthroplasty prior to revision was fourteen years (range four to twenty-three years). There were no nerve palsies, vascular injuries or intra-operative fractures in this patient group. All ace-tabular components at latest review were soundly fixed with the exception of one patient who underwent excision arthroplasty at twelve months for deep infection. Twenty-one of the twenty-four hips with bone grafting demonstrated positive radiographic signs of incorporation; the remaining threehips have a stable interface but no evidence of bone ingrowth. Three of the fifty-seven hips presented with hip dislocations after revision arthroplasty; two were managed by closed reduction; the third by open reduction and soft tissue repair.
Revision hip arthroplasty does not bring to the patient the same degree of benefit as the primary operation. We compared two hundred and thirteen patients undergoing revision arthroplasty with five hundred and forty-seven patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. The complication rate in the revision arthroplasty group was approximately twice as high in the primary group (p<
.05) primarily as a result of postoperative dislocation. Both groups of patients had a statistically significant improvement between their pre- and postoperative WOMAC and SF-36 physical scores; however, there was also a statistically significant difference in outcome when the two groups were compared, with primary patients having significantly improved WOMAC and SF-36 physical scores. To compare the outcomes between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty patients at one institution with regard to demographics, complication rates and functional outcome. Revision hip arthroplasty does not bring to the patient the same degree of benefit as does the primary operation. The reason for this is multi-factorial and includes a higher complication rate and lower functional outcome. Further study of the problems associated with revision total hip replacement especially focused on complication rates would appear to be warranted. All patients were entered prospectively in a database and were assessed by means of physical examination, radiographs, SF-36 and WOMAC questionnaires. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years with a range of two to five years. Patients were seen on an annual basis. Five hundred and forty-seven patients underwent primary total hip replacement and two hundred and thirteen patients underwent revision total hip replacement. 53.4% of patients undergoing primary and 52% of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty were female. Mean age at primary hip replacement 61.8 years, revision hip replacement 67.1 years. Post-operative complication rate was 7.6% in primary patients and 14.7% in revision patients (p<
.05); there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to intra-operative fracture, implant loosening or postoperative infection; there was a statistically significant difference in terms of dislocation with 0.8% of primary arthroplasties and 5.6% of revision patients sustaining at least one dislocation following their surgery (p<
.01). Both groups of patients had a statistically significant improvement between their pre- and post-operative WOMAC and SF-36 physical scores (p<
.0001); however, there was also a statistically significant difference in outcome when the two groups were compared with primary patients having significantly improved WOMAC scores (p<
.0001) and significantly improved SF-36 physical scores (p<
.0001).
