Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 5, pp 1518–1525 | Cite as

What is the Prognosis of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 55 Years and Younger?

  • Muyibat A. Adelani
  • Karla Crook
  • Robert L. Barrack
  • William J. Maloney
  • John C. Clohisy
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Revision THAs are expected to increase; however, few studies have characterized the prognosis of revision THAs in younger patients.

Questions/purposes

We performed a case-control study to evaluate intermediate-term survivorship, complications, and hip and activity scores after revision THAs in patients 55 years and younger, compared these outcomes with the results of primary THAs in a matched patient population, and evaluated risk factors for failed revisions.

Methods

Ninety-three patients (103 hips) had a minimum of 4 years after revision THA, died, or had rerevision surgery. They were matched with 98 patients (103 hips) with primary THAs. Survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups using t-tests. Risk factors for failure also were assessed with chi-square analysis.

Results

At mean followup of 6.7 years, 71 revision THAs (69%) survived, compared with 102 (99%) primary THAs (odds ratio [OR], 45.9; 95% CI, 16.5–128.4; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 29% of the revision group and 6% of the primary group (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, 4.14–10.67; p < 0.001). After revision THA, the average improvement in Harris hip score was 19.2 compared with 34.4 after primary THA (p < 0.001). The UCLA activity score improved by an average of 0.87 after revision compared with 2.36 after primary THA (p < 0.001). Conventional polyethylene was associated with failure after revision THA (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.87–4.76; p = 0.004).

Conclusions

At intermediate-term followup, young patients undergoing revision THAs had markedly higher failure and complication rates and more modest clinical improvements compared with patients in a matched cohort who had primary THAs.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Davis AM, Agnidis Z, Badley E, Kiss A, Waddell JP, Gross AE. Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:685–691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Langeland N, Vollset SE. Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;351:135–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koenig K, Huddleston JI 3rd, Huddleston H, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB. Advanced age and comorbidity increase the risk for adverse events after revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1402–1407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2606–2612.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuzyk PR, Saccone M, Sprague S, Simunovic N, Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH. Cross-linked versus conventional polyethylene for total hip replacement: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:593–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lie SA, Havelin LI, Furnes ON, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE. Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:504–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lübbeke A, Katz JN, Perneger TV, Hoffmeyer P. Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:394–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, Phillips CB, Losina E, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:773–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raut VV, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM. Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with cement in young patients without rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1853–1856.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, Glazier R, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg. 2008;51:428–436.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh JA, Vessely MB, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Melton LJ 3rd, Kurland RL, Berry DJ. A population-based study of trends in the use of total hip and total knee arthroplasty, 1969–2008. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:898–904.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skyttä ET, Jarkko L, Antti E, Huhtala H, Ville R. Increasing incidence of hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in 30- to 59-year-old patients. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:1–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strömberg CN, Herberts P. Cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 55 years old: a multicenter evaluation of second-generation cementing technique. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:489–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strömberg CN, Herberts P, Ahnfelt L. Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old: clinical and radiologic results after 4 years. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3:47–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas GE, Simpson DJ, Mehmood S, Taylor A, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, Murray DW, Glyn-Jones S. The seven-year wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:716–722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wainwright C, Theis JC, Garneti N, Melloh M. Age at hip or knee joint replacement surgery predicts likelihood of revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1411–1415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang JP, Chen WM, Chen CF, Chiang CC, Huang CK, Chen TH. Cementation of cross-linked polyethylene liner into well-fixed acetabular shells: mean 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:420–424.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoon TR, Seon JK, Song EK, Chung JY, Seo HY, Park YB. Cementation of a metal-inlay polyethylene liner into a stable metal shell in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 652–657.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muyibat A. Adelani
    • 1
  • Karla Crook
    • 1
  • Robert L. Barrack
    • 1
  • William J. Maloney
    • 2
  • John C. Clohisy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineRedwood CityUSA

Personalised recommendations