Literature DB >> 18975043

Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Bryan D Springer1, Thomas K Fehring, William L Griffin, Susan M Odum, John L Masonis.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Current outcomes data on revision total hip arthroplasty focuses on specific implants and techniques rather than more general outcomes. We therefore examined a large consecutive series of failed THAs undergoing revision to determine if survivorship and modes of failure differ in comparison to the current data. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1100 revision THAs. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 6 years; range, 0-20.4 years). Eighty-seven percent of revision total hips required no further surgery; however, 141 hips (13%) underwent a second revision at a mean of 3.7 years (range, 0.025-15.9 years). Seventy percent (98 hips) had a second revision for a diagnosis different from that of their index revision, while 30% (43 hips) had a second revision for the same diagnosis. The most common reasons for failure were instability (49 of 141 hips, 35%), aseptic loosening (42 of 141 hips, 30%), osteolysis and/or wear (17 of 141 hips, 12%), infection (17 of 141 hips, 12%), miscellaneous (13 of 141 hips, 9%), and periprosthetic fracture (three of 141 hips, 2%). Survivorship for revision total hip arthroplasty using second revision as endpoint was 82% at 10 years. Aseptic loosening and instability accounted for 65% of these failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic (retrospective) study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18975043      PMCID: PMC2600991          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0566-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  54 in total

1.  Reconstruction of severe acetabular bone-deficiency: the Burch-Schneider antiprotrusio cage in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Herwig Pieringer; Vinzenz Auersperg; Nikolaus Böhler
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong; Edmund Lau; Fionna Mowat; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Effect of femoral head size and abductors on dislocation after revision THA.

Authors:  Peter L Kung; Michael D Ries
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Revision total hip arthroplasty: the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Robert L Barrack; J Thomas McClure; Corey F Burak; John C Clohisy; Javad Parvizi; William Hozack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Role of capsular repair on dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D J Chivas; K Smith; M Tanzer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  David K DeBoer; Michael J Christie; Martha F Brinson; J Craig Morrison
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Survivorship of femoral revision hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis.

Authors:  Marc W Hungerford; David S Hungerford; Harpal S Khanuja; B Patricia Pietryak; Lynne C Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years.

Authors:  Joseph C McCarthy; Jo-Ann Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy.

Authors:  Youn-Soo Park; Young-Wan Moon; Seung-Jae Lim
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Fifteen-year clinical survivorship of Harris-Galante total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; Thomas Sullivan; Gavan Duffy; Miguel E Cabanela
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  56 in total

1.  The Frank Stinchfield Award: Dislocation in revision THA: do large heads (36 and 40 mm) result in reduced dislocation rates in a randomized clinical trial?

Authors:  Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Nelson V Greidanus; Eric R Bohm; Martin J Petrak; Craig J Della Valle; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  [What can be done when hip prostheses fail? : New trends in revision endoprosthetics].

Authors:  S Gravius; T Randau; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  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

4.  [Replacement of femoral hip prostheses].

Authors:  M Rudert; M Hoberg; P M Prodinger; R Gradinger; B M Holzapfel
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Dual mobility cups for preventing early hip arthroplasty dislocation in patients at risk: experience in a county hospital.

Authors:  Sebastian S Mukka; Sarwar S Mahmood; Göran O Sjödén; Arkan S Sayed-Noor
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2013-06-11

6.  The value of computed tomography based navigation in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kazunari Kuroda; Tamon Kabata; Toru Maeda; Yoshitomo Kajino; Shin Watanabe; Shintaro Iwai; Fujita Kenji; Kazuhiro Hasegawa; Daisuke Inoue; Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Revisions of monoblock metal-on-metal THAs have high early complication rates.

Authors:  Louis S Stryker; Susan M Odum; Thomas K Fehring; Bryan D Springer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  [Painful hip arthroplasty: a diagnostic algorithm].

Authors:  M Hoberg; B M Holzapfel; M Rudert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  [Hip dislocation after revision arthroplasty : Risk assessment and treatment strategies].

Authors:  P M Prodinger; J Schauwecker; H Mühlhofer; N Harrasser; F Pohlig; C Suren; R von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Factors influencing inpatient rehabilitation length of stay following revision hip replacements: a retrospective study.

Authors:  So-Mei Teresa Yeung; Aileen M Davis; Rajka Soric
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.