We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.
With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with
metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased
risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types
of arthroplasties (non-MoM). A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital
Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics
on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total
hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no
past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as
having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty.
The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital
for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data
from all patients and from those matched by propensity score.Aims
Patients and Methods
A recent paper suggested implanting an uncemented acetabular shell which is 6mm or greater than the native femoral head in total hip arthroplasty (THA) significantly increased the risk of postoperative pain. We retrospectively analyzed 265 Delta ceramic-on-ceramic (DCoC) THA comparing the native femoral head size to the implanted shell and reviewing if the patient suffered with post-operative pain (POP). 265 consecutive THAs were performed using the Corail and Pinnacle prostheses with DCoC bearing. Native femoral head size was calculated retrospectively on pre-operative radiographs using TraumaCad software. All patients were sent questionnaires requesting information on satisfaction, sounds, postoperative pain and complications. Statistical analysis was then undertaken on the data.Introduction
Methods
