Abstract
Introduction
To improve revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) prognosis and postoperative management, a better understanding of how non-elective and elective indications influence clinical outcomes is needed. We sought to compare ambulatory status, complication rates, and implant survival rates in patients who underwent aseptic rTHA for periprosthetic fracture or elective indications.
Materials and methods
This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTHA patients with a minimum follow-up of two years at a single tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into two groups: fracture rTHA (F-rTHA) if the patient had a periprosthetic femoral or acetabular fracture, and elective rTHA (E-rTHA) if the patient underwent rTHA for other aseptic indications. Multivariate regression was performed for clinical outcomes to adjust for baseline characteristics, and Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to assess implant survival.
Results
A total of 324 patients (F-rTHA: 67, E-rTHA: 257) were included. In the F-rTHA cohort, 57 (85.0%) and 10 (15.0%) had femoral and acetabular periprosthetic fractures, respectively. F-rTHA patients were more likely to be discharged to skilled nursing (40.3% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.049) and acute rehabilitation facilities (19.4% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.004). F-rTHA patients had higher 90-day readmission rates (26.9% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.033). Ambulatory status at three months postoperatively significantly differed (p = 0.004); F-rTHA patients were more likely to use a walker (44.6% vs. 18.8%) and less likely to ambulate independently (19.6% vs. 28.6%) or with a cane (28.6% vs. 41.1%). These differences did not persist at one and two years postoperatively. Freedom from all-cause re-revision (77.6% vs. 74.7%, p = 0.912) and re-revision due to PJI (88.1% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.206) were similar at five-year follow-up.
Conclusions
Compared to rTHA performed for elective aseptic indications, fracture rTHA patients had poorer early functional outcomes, with greater need for ambulatory aids and non-home discharge. However, these differences did not persist long term and did not portend increased infection or re-revision rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ritter MA, Carr KD, Keating EM et al (1996) Revision total joint arthroplasty: does medicare reimbursement justify time spent? Orthopedics 19:137–139. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19960201-08
Barrack RL, Krempec JA, Clohisy JC et al (2013) Accuracy of acetabular component position in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 95:1760–1768. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01704
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:128–133. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00155
Mahadevan D, Challand C, Keenan J (2010) Revision total hip replacement: predictors of blood loss, transfusion requirements, and length of hospitalisation. J Orthop Traumatol 11:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-010-0105-z
Zhan C, Kaczmarek R, Loyo-Berrios N et al (2007) Incidence and short-term outcomes of primary and revision hip replacement in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg 89:526–533. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00952
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg 89:780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
Vanhegan IS, Malik AK, Jayakumar P et al (2012) A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94-B:619–623. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27073
Sams JD, Milbrandt JC, Froelich JM et al (2010) Hospital outcome after emergent vs elective revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:826–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.097
Sams JD, Francis ML, Scaife SL et al (2012) Redefining revision total hip arthroplasty based on hospital admission status. J Arthroplasty 27:758–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.007
Kuroda Y, Hayashi S, Hashimoto S et al (2020) Predictors of health-related quality of life after revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Indian J Orthop 54:463–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-020-00057-y
Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304
Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-5403(94)90135-X
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the united states. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 91:128–133. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00155
Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN et al (2003) Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the united states medicare population. J Bone Jt Surgery-American 85:27–32. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200301000-00005
Ariza-Vega P, Jiménez-Moleón JJ, Kristensen MT (2014) Non-weight-bearing status compromises the functional level up to 1 yr after hip fracture surgery. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 93:641–648. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000075
Warren J, Sundaram K, Anis H et al (2019) The association between weight-bearing status and early complications in hip fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02453-z
Biring GS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV et al (2007) Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:1446–1451. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B11.19617
Hevesi M, Wyles CC, Yao JJ et al (2019) Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of fracture: more expensive, more complications, same diagnosis-related groups. J Bone Jt Surg 101:912–919. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00523
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Schwarzkopf is a board or committee member of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, has stock options with Gauss surgical, Intellijoint, and PSI, serves on editorial or governing board of the Journal of Arthoplasty and Arthroplasty Today, serves as a paid consultant for Intellijoint, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer, and receives research support from Smith & Nephew. Dr. Rozell is a board or committee member of the New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
Institutional IRB Approval was attained for this study.
Informed consent
This was a retrospective analysis, and as such, informed consent was not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Oakley, C.T., Stiles, E.R., Ronan, E.M. et al. Ambulatory status after revision total hip arthroplasty in elective versus fracture indications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 6935–6943 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04965-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04965-0