Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was developed to quantify the influence of comorbidities on survival. The age-related CCI respects patients’ age as an additional risk factor. There are several studies available based on administrative data regarding functional outcome, implant survival, resource use and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). To date, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the correlation of the CCI and the age-related CCI in case of revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA).

Objective

Our objective was to validate the influence of the CCI and age-related CCI in patients undergoing RTHA regarding complication rate, resource use implant survival and mortality rate.

Methods

Between October 2007 and November 2012, 142 consecutive patients undergoing RTHA were included in this retrospective study. Routine clinical data were collected and analysed as anonymized aggregated data. In accordance to CCI and age-related CCI the rate of complications (internal medical and surgical complications), the length of hospital stay and the need for ICU treatment and the mortality rate was evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was used to determine implant survival.

Results

Twenty-one patients (15 %) had a low risk CCI, 59 patients (41 %) a moderate risk CCI and 62 patients (44 %) a high risk CCI. The mean follow-up was 27 months (range 24–70 months). In total, we recorded 57 complications (40 %), of which 45 were surgical (79 %) and 12 were internal medical complications (21 %). Twenty-four patients (17 %) had to undergo revision surgery. CCI and age-related CCI had no influence regarding implant survival. We recorded a significant influence of the age-related CCI in regard to the necessity of postoperative intensive care unit stay and the length of total hospital stay. Further we recorded a significant influence of the CCI and the age-related CCI regarding postoperative complications and internal complications, postoperative dislocation and the need for surgical revision.

Conclusion

In summary, we conclude that the CCI and the age-related CCI are strong predictors regarding complication rate in patients undergoing RTHA. In a short- to mid-term follow-up, no influence on implant survival is detectable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rius C, Perez G, Martinez JM, Bares M, Schiaffino A, Gispert R, Fernandez E (2004) An adaptation of Charlson comorbidity index predicted subsequent mortality in a health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 57:403–408. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM (2003) How to measure comorbidity. A critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 56:221–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reininga IH, Wagenmakers R, van den Akker-Scheek I, Stant AD, Groothoff JW, Bulstra SK, Zijlstra W, Stevens M (2007) Effectiveness of computer-navigated minimally invasive total hip surgery compared to conventional total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnsen SP, Sorensen HT, Lucht U, Soballe K, Overgaard S, Pedersen AB (2006) Patient-related predictors of implant failure after primary total hip replacement in the initial, short- and long-terms. A nationwide Danish follow-up study including 36,984 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1303–1308. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.17399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kreder HJ, Grosso P, Williams JI, Jaglal S, Axcell T, Wal EK, Stephen DJ (2003) Provider volume and other predictors of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: a population study in Ontario. Can J Surg J Can Chir 46:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hall SF, Groome PA, Streiner DL, Rochon PA (2006) Interrater reliability of measurements of comorbid illness should be reported. J Clin Epidemiol 59:926–933. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dreinhofer KE, Dieppe P, Sturmer T, Grober-Gratz D, Floren M, Gunther KP, Puhl W, Brenner H (2006) Indications for total hip replacement: comparison of assessments of orthopaedic surgeons and referring physicians. Ann Rheum Dis 65:1346–1350. doi:10.1136/ard.2005.047811

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M (2001) Infection in total knee replacement: a retrospective review of 6489 total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:15–23

  10. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W (2008) Diagnosis and treatment of implant-associated septic arthritis and osteomyelitis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 10:394–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Steckelberg JM, Harmsen SW, Mandrekar JN, Osmon DR (2006) Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 42:471–478. doi:10.1086/499234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2008) Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1710–1715. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wimmer MD, Vavken P, Pagenstert GI, Valderrabano V, Randau TM, Wirtz DC, Gravius S (2013) Spacer usage in prosthetic joint infections does not influence infect resolution: retrospective analysis of 120 joints with two-stage exchange. Re: Clinical outcome and microbiological findings using antibiotic-loaded spacers in two-stage revision of prosthetic joint infections. Cabo J, Euba G, Saborido A, Gonzalez-Panisello M, Dominguez MA, Agullo JL, Murillo O, Verdaguer R, Ariza J. J Infection 2011 63(1):23. J Inf 67:82–84. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2013.02.001

  17. Weiss S, Geiss H, Kommerell M, Simank HG, Bernd L, Henle P (2006) Improving the diagnosis of septic arthritis by use of a pediatric blood culture system. Orthopade 35(456):458–462. doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0900-z

    Google Scholar 

  18. Trampuz A, Steinrucken J, Clauss M, Bizzini A, Furustrand U, Uckay I, Peter R, Bille J, Borens O (2010) New methods for the diagnosis of implant-associated infections. Rev Med Suisse 6:731–734

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paprosky WG, O’Rourke M, Sporer SM (2005) The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:216–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morawietz L, Gehrke T, Schroder JH, Krenn V (2006) Histopathological diagnostics in endoprosthesis loosening. Pathologe 27:439–445. doi:10.1007/s00292-006-0867-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parvizi J, Heller S, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Springer BD (2015) Periprosthetic joint infection: the algorithmic approach and emerging evidence. Instr Course Lect 64:51–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wimmer MD, Randau TM, Petersdorf S, Pagenstert GI, Weisskopf M, Wirtz DC, Gravius S (2013) Evaluation of an interdisciplinary therapy algorithm in patients with prosthetic joint infections. Int Orthop 37:2271–2278. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1995-1

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmolders J, Friedrich MJ, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Strauss AC, Kohlhof H, Wirtz DC, Gravius S (2015) Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty with a modular revision system and biological defect augmentation. Int Orthop 39(4):623–630. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2533-5

  24. Friedrich MJ, Gravius S, Schmolders J, Wimmer MD, Wirtz DC (2014) Biological acetabular defect reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty using impaction bone grafting and an acetabular reconstruction ring. Oper Orthop Traumatol 26:126–140. doi:10.1007/s00064-013-0270-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Michel RD, Randau TM, Wimmer MD, Kohlhof H, Wirtz DC, Gravius S (2014) Management of severe periacetabular bone loss combined with pelvic discontinuity in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:2455–2461. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2443-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wirtz DC, Gravius S, Ascherl R, Thorweihe M, Forst R, Noeth U, Maus UM, Wimmer MD, Zeiler G, Deml MC (2014) Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium stem: 5- to 16-year results of 163 cases. Acta Orthop 85:562–569. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.958809

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Soohoo NF, Zingmond DS, Lieberman JR, Ko CY (2006) Primary total knee arthroplasty in California 1991 to 2001: does hospital volume affect outcomes? J Arthroplast 21:199–205. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.03.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weaver F, Hynes D, Hopkinson W, Wixson R, Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson WG (2003) Preoperative risks and outcomes of hip and knee arthroplasty in the Veterans Health Administration. J Arthroplast 18:693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Soderman P (2002) The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):2–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bjorgul K, Novicoff WM, Saleh KJ (2010) Evaluating comorbidities in total hip and knee arthroplasty: available instruments. J Orthop Traumatol: Off J Ital Soc Orthop Traumatol 11:203–209. doi:10.1007/s10195-010-0115-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Schmolders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmolders, J., Friedrich, M.J., Michel, R. et al. Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 39, 1771–1777 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2810-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2810-y

Keywords

Navigation