Aims

In order to release the contracture band completely without damaging normal tissues (such as the sciatic nerve) in the surgical treatment of gluteal muscle contracture (GMC), we tried to display the relationship between normal tissue and contracture bands by magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) images, and to predesign a minimally invasive surgery based on the MRN images in advance.

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers.

This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA.

There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA.

Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes.

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation.

All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n₀=13,900; n₅=2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions).

For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group.

Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice.

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.