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). We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups.Aims
Methods
We reviewed the long-term results at ten to 12 years of 118 total hip replacements in 109 patients using a second-generation hemispherical cementless acetabular component (Reflection) designed to address the problem of backside wear. Five patients (five hips) died and six patients (seven hips) were lost to follow-up. The remaining 98 patients (106 hips) had a mean age of 62.9 years (34.0 to 86.2) A rate of revision for aseptic loosening of 0.9%, and predictable results were found with respect to radiological evidence of fixation, lack of pain, walking ability, range of movement and function. One component was revised for aseptic loosening, and of the 101 hips (95.2%) that did not have a revision, minor osteolytic lesions of the pelvis were seen in six (5.9%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the total cohort of 118 hips revealed a 96.4% survival at both ten (95% confidence interval 90 to 98) and 12 years (95% confidence interval 86 to 98).
