BACKGROUND: The objective of routine outpatient assessment of well-functioning patients after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is to detect asymptomatic failure of prostheses to guide recommendations for early intervention. We have observed that the revision of THAs in asymptomatic patients is highly uncommon. We therefore question the need for routine follow-up of patients after THA. METHODS: A prospective analysis of an orthopaedic database identified 158 patients who received 177 revision THAs over a four-year period. A retrospective chart review was conducted. Patient demographics, primary and revision surgery parameters and follow-up information were recorded and cross-referenced with Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data. RESULTS: One hundred ten THAs in 104 patients (average age 70.4 (SD 9.8 years)). There were 70 (63.6%) in total, 13 (11.8%) femoral and 27 (24.5%) acetabular revisions. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (70%), dislocation (8.2%), peri-prosthetic fracture (7.3%), osteolysis (6.4%) and infection (4.5%). Only four (3.6%) were asymptomatic revisions. A mean of 5.3 (SD 5.2 and 1.9 (SD 5.3)) follow-up appointments were required before revision in patients with and without symptoms, respectively. The average time from the primary to revision surgery was 11.8 (SD 7.23) years. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patients with prostheses with excellent long-term clinical results as validated by joint registries, routine follow-up of asymptomatic THA should be questioned and requires further investigation. Based on the work of this study, the current practice of routine follow-up of asymptomatic THA may be excessively costly and unnecessary, and a less resource-intensive review method may be more appropriate.
BACKGROUND: The objective of routine outpatient assessment of well-functioning patients after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is to detect asymptomatic failure of prostheses to guide recommendations for early intervention. We have observed that the revision of THAs in asymptomatic patients is highly uncommon. We therefore question the need for routine follow-up of patients after THA. METHODS: A prospective analysis of an orthopaedic database identified 158 patients who received 177 revision THAs over a four-year period. A retrospective chart review was conducted. Patient demographics, primary and revision surgery parameters and follow-up information were recorded and cross-referenced with Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry data. RESULTS: One hundred ten THAs in 104 patients (average age 70.4 (SD 9.8 years)). There were 70 (63.6%) in total, 13 (11.8%) femoral and 27 (24.5%) acetabular revisions. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (70%), dislocation (8.2%), peri-prosthetic fracture (7.3%), osteolysis (6.4%) and infection (4.5%). Only four (3.6%) were asymptomatic revisions. A mean of 5.3 (SD 5.2 and 1.9 (SD 5.3)) follow-up appointments were required before revision in patients with and without symptoms, respectively. The average time from the primary to revision surgery was 11.8 (SD 7.23) years. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patients with prostheses with excellent long-term clinical results as validated by joint registries, routine follow-up of asymptomatic THA should be questioned and requires further investigation. Based on the work of this study, the current practice of routine follow-up of asymptomatic THA may be excessively costly and unnecessary, and a less resource-intensive review method may be more appropriate.
Authors: Bill Reynolds; Nick Maister; Stephen D Gill; Shaun Waring; Peter Schoch; Sally Beattie; Andrew Thomson; Richard S Page Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.362