Literature DB >> 17443324

Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?

Slif D Ulrich1, Thorsten M Seyler, Derek Bennett, Ronald E Delanois, Khaled J Saleh, Issada Thongtrangan, Michael Kuskowski, Edward Y Cheng, Peter F Sharkey, Javad Parvizi, James B Stiehl, Michael A Mont.   

Abstract

Primary total hip arthroplasties have reported success rates of greater than 95% in many series with a longer than 10-year follow-up. Revision total hip arthroplasty due to such factors as increased high-activity levels, younger patients undergoing the procedure and increasing life expectancy has become more prevalent. An understanding of the mechanisms and timing of total hip arthroplasty failure can direct efforts aimed at reducing revision rates. This study was conducted to evaluate the indications for revision hip arthroplasty and relate these to the time after the index primary hip arthroplasty. A review of all revision hip arthroplasties at two centres over a 6-year time period identified 225 patients who underwent 237 revisions. The overall mean time to revision was 83 months (range: 0-360 months). The cause of failure was aseptic loosening in 123 hips (51.9%), instability in 40 hips (16.9%) and infection in 37 hips (5.5%). When stratified into two groups (less than 5 years, more than 5 years after the index primary hip arthroplasty), 118 of 237 (50%) revisions occurred in less than 5 years, with 33% due to instability and 24% resulting from infection. The majority of the causes of failure within 5 years in these early revisions were instability and deep infection. The success of hip arthroplasty is likely to be compromized if technical aspects of the surgery for appropriate component positioning and critical protocols to minimise complications such as infection are not given the proper attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17443324      PMCID: PMC2551710          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  33 in total

1.  Impacted corticocancellous allografts and cement for revision of the femur component in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  G Ullmark; G Hallin; O Nilsson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem.

Authors:  S A Crawford; P D Siney; B M Wroblewski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-07

3.  Exchange impaction allografting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty: results in 87 cases after 3.6 years' follow-up.

Authors:  Martin Lind; Niels Krarup; Søren Mikkelsen; Erik Hørlyck
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  The outcome of total hip replacement in obese and non-obese patients at 10- to 18-years.

Authors:  J R McLaughlin; K R Lee
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-10

5.  The perioperative complication rate of orthopedic surgery in sickle cell disease: report of the National Sickle Cell Surgery Study Group.

Authors:  E P Vichinsky; L D Neumayr; C Haberkern; A N Earles; J Eckman; M Koshy; D M Black
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.047

6.  Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alvin Ong; Kirk L Wong; Max Lai; Jonathan P Garino; Marvin E Steinberg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem : evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years.

Authors:  P Böhm; O Bischel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; W Scott Harmsen; Miguel E Cabanela; Bernard F Morrey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987-99.

Authors:  O Furnes; S A Lie; B Espehaug; S E Vollset; L B Engesaeter; L I Havelin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-05

10.  Revision of a cemented acetabular component to a cementless acetabular component. A ten to fourteen-year follow-up study.

Authors:  J E Templeton; J J Callaghan; D D Goetz; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  106 in total

1.  Is routine mid-term total hip arthroplasty surveillance beneficial?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Bradley S Ellison; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Intra-prosthetic dislocation of dual-mobility cups after total hip arthroplasty: potential causes from a clinical and biomechanical perspective.

Authors:  Christian Fabry; Jean Langlois; Moussa Hamadouche; Rainer Bader
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Periprosthetic femoral fracture as cause of early revision after short stem hip arthroplasty-a multicentric analysis.

Authors:  Sang-Min Kim; Seung-Beom Han; Kee Hyung Rhyu; Jeong Joon Yoo; Kwang-Jun Oh; Je Hyun Yoo; Kyung-Jae Lee; Seung-Jae Lim
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  High pressure may inhibit periprosthetic osteogenesis.

Authors:  Kongzu Hu; Chengtao Wang; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Multivariate use of MRI biomarkers to classify histologically confirmed necrosis in symptomatic total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mohammad Sherafati; Thomas W Bauer; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff; Kevin M Koch
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Comparative effectiveness of ceramic-on-ceramic implants in stemmed hip replacement: a multinational study of six national and regional registries.

Authors:  Art Sedrakyan; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Miquel Pons; Leif Havelin; Susan Mehle; Elizabeth Paxton; Thomas Barber; Guy Cafri
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement.

Authors:  Michael Wyatt; Gary Hooper; Christopher Frampton; Alastair Rothwell
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-11-18

8.  What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Component Loosening in THA?

Authors:  Alissa J Burge; Gabrielle P Konin; Jennifer L Berkowitz; Bin Lin; Matthew F Koff; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Ion release in ceramic bearings for total hip replacement: Results from an in vitro and an in vivo study.

Authors:  Jan Philippe Kretzer; Ulrike Mueller; Marcus R Streit; Hartmuth Kiefer; Robert Sonntag; Robert M Streicher; Joern Reinders
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Male gender, Charnley class C, and severity of bone defects predict the risk for aseptic loosening in the cup of ABG I hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jiri Gallo; Vitezslav Havranek; Jana Zapletalova; Jiri Lostak
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.