Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) has been reported to be as high as 60% at 5 years. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality rate for PPF revisions, compared to revision for aseptic loosening or infection at our tertiary referral centre.

Revision arthroplasty procedures performed for PPF, aseptic loosening or infection between January 2014 and December 2015 at our institution were identified using a prospectively collected PPF referral database and locally collected NJR data. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups for baseline demographics, admission to higher-level care, length of stay, complications, and Kaplan-Meier failure (mortality) at 1 & 5 years post-operative (with log-rank test for equality).

There were 37 PPF, 71 infected and 221 aseptic revisions. PPF had a higher proportion of females (65% vs. 39% in infection and 53% in aseptic; p = 0.031) and grade 3 and 4 ASA patients (p = 0.006). Median time to surgery from injury for PPF was 8 days (95% CI, 6–16). Single-stage procedures were performed in 84% of PPF, 42% of infection and 99% of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). 19% of PPF revisions required HDU admission, 1% in the aseptic group and none in the infection group (p<0.001). Median length of stay was significantly different (PPF 10; infection 14; aseptic 8 days (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 1-year mortality were: PPF = 0%; infection = 2.8% (0.7–11.1%); aseptic = 0.9% (0.2–3.5%). 5-year mortality estimates were: PPF = 17.1% (8–34%), infection = 8.7% (4–18.3%), aseptic = 12% (8.4–17%). Log-rank test of equality was not significant, p=0.833.

Despite the PPF group having an average delay to surgery of 8 days, higher ASA grades and more admissions to HDU there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the groups at 1 and 5 years postoperatively. Using a coherent MDT approach with dedicated healthcare professionals this service demonstrates a low post operative mortality rate which merits further investment and development.

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening.

We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome.

Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)).

This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons.

The aim of this study is the comparative assessment of long term clinical (subjective and objective), functional and quality of life outcome data between primary and revision THA.

122 patients (130 hips) who underwent cementless revision THA of both components (TMT cup, Wagner SL stem, Zimmer Biomet) for aseptic loosening only (Group A) were compared to a matched group of 100 patients (100 hips) who underwent cementless primary THA for osteoarthritis (Synergy stem, R3 cup, Smith & Nephew) (Group B). Outcomes were evaluated with survival analysis curves, Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford hip score (OHS), Short form-12 health survey (SF-12) and EQ-5D-5L scales. Mobility was assessed with walking speed, timed up and go test (TUG), Parker mobility, Lower extremity function score (LEFS) and UCLA scores.

At a mean follow up of 14.4 years (10 to 20) a cumulative success rate of 96% (95% CI 96 to 99%) in Group A and 98% (95% CI 97 to 99%) in Group B with operation for any reason as an end point was recorded. Statistically significant differences between groups were developed for WOMAC (Mann-Whitney U test, p= 0.014), OHS (Mann-Whitney U test, p= 0.020) and physical component of SF-12 scores (Mann-Whitney U test, p= 0.029) only. In Group A, in multiple regression analysis, patients’ cognition (p=0.001), BMI (p=0.007) and pain (p=0.022) were found to be independent factors influencing functional recovery (WOMAC). Similarly, pain (p=0.03) was found to influence quality of life (EQ-5D-5).

In the long term, revision THA shows satisfactory but inferior clinical, functional, and quality of life outcomes when compared to primary THA. Residual pain, BMI and cognitive impairment independently affect functional outcomes.

Introduction

Large acetabular bone defects caused by aseptic loosening are common. Reconstruction of large segmental defects can be challenging. Various implants and operative techniques have been developed to allow further acetabular revision in cases where bone stock is poor. Reconstitution of bone stock is desirable especially in younger patients. The aim of the study was to review the clinical and radiological results of hip revision with structural acetabular bone grafts using fresh frozen allograft and cemented components.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).