Literature DB >> 24249534

What is the prognosis of revision total hip arthroplasty in patients 55 years and younger?

Muyibat A Adelani1, Karla Crook, Robert L Barrack, William J Maloney, John C Clohisy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Revision THAs are expected to increase; however, few studies have characterized the prognosis of revision THAs in younger patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a case-control study to evaluate intermediate-term survivorship, complications, and hip and activity scores after revision THAs in patients 55 years and younger, compared these outcomes with the results of primary THAs in a matched patient population, and evaluated risk factors for failed revisions.
METHODS: Ninety-three patients (103 hips) had a minimum of 4 years after revision THA, died, or had rerevision surgery. They were matched with 98 patients (103 hips) with primary THAs. Survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups using t-tests. Risk factors for failure also were assessed with chi-square analysis.
RESULTS: At mean followup of 6.7 years, 71 revision THAs (69%) survived, compared with 102 (99%) primary THAs (odds ratio [OR], 45.9; 95% CI, 16.5-128.4; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 29% of the revision group and 6% of the primary group (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, 4.14-10.67; p < 0.001). After revision THA, the average improvement in Harris hip score was 19.2 compared with 34.4 after primary THA (p < 0.001). The UCLA activity score improved by an average of 0.87 after revision compared with 2.36 after primary THA (p < 0.001). Conventional polyethylene was associated with failure after revision THA (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.87-4.76; p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: At intermediate-term followup, young patients undergoing revision THAs had markedly higher failure and complication rates and more modest clinical improvements compared with patients in a matched cohort who had primary THAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24249534      PMCID: PMC3971212          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3377-9

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


  20 in total

1.  Failure rates for 4762 revision total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  S A Lie; L I Havelin; O N Furnes; L B Engesaeter; S E Vollset
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-05

2.  Advanced age and comorbidity increase the risk for adverse events after revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Karl Koenig; James I Huddleston; Heather Huddleston; William J Maloney; Stuart B Goodman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years old. Clinical and radiologic results after 4 years.

Authors:  C N Strömberg; P Herberts; L Ahnfelt
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Revision of the acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty with cement in young patients without rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  V V Raut; P D Siney; B M Wroblewski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Cemented revision total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 55 years old. A multicenter evaluation of second-generation cementing technique.

Authors:  C N Strömberg; P Herberts
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity.

Authors:  Anne Lübbeke; Jeffrey N Katz; Thomas V Perneger; Pierre Hoffmeyer
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 4.666

7.  Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Aileen M Davis; Zoe Agnidis; Elizabeth Badley; Alex Kiss; James P Waddell; Allan E Gross
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Cementation of a metal-inlay polyethylene liner into a stable metal shell in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Taek Rim Yoon; Jong Keun Seon; Eun Kyoo Song; Jae Yoon Chung; Hyoung Yeon Seo; Yu Bok Park
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population.

Authors:  Nizar N Mahomed; Jane A Barrett; Jeffrey N Katz; Charlotte B Phillips; Elena Losina; Robert A Lew; Edward Guadagnoli; William H Harris; Robert Poss; John A Baron
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement.

Authors:  B Espehaug; L I Havelin; L B Engesaeter; N Langeland; S E Vollset
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the causes of failure of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Connor Kenney; Steven Dick; Justin Lea; Jiayong Liu; Nabil A Ebraheim
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-02

2.  Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement?

Authors:  Ted Eneqvist; Szilárd Nemes; Erik Bülow; Maziar Mohaddes; Ola Rolfson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  What Host Factors Affect Aseptic Loosening After THA and TKA?

Authors:  Jeffrey J Cherian; Julio J Jauregui; Samik Banerjee; Todd Pierce; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: Where are we now?

Authors:  E J Clough; T M Clough
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-31

5.  Is the Revision Rate Higher After Hip Arthroplasty in Teenage Patients? A Prospective Study with Long-Term Follow-Up of More Than 10 Years.

Authors:  Vijay C Bose; Kanniyan Kalaivanan; Mithun Manohar; Ashok Kumar; Shantanu Patil; P Suryanarayan
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 1.251

6.  What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?

Authors:  Jason Verspeek; Thijs A Nijenhuis; Martijn F L Kuijpers; Wim H C Rijnen; B Willem Schreurs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases.

Authors:  Melissa D Gaillard; Thomas P Gross
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Lower Limb Loading during Gait in Patients Long Period after Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision.

Authors:  Eliska Kubonova; Zdenek Svoboda; Miroslav Janura; Jiri Gallo; Sarka Duskova
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Functional outcome measures in a surgical model of hip osteoarthritis in dogs.

Authors:  Dianne Little; Stephen Johnson; Jonathan Hash; Steven A Olson; Bradley T Estes; Franklin T Moutos; B Duncan X Lascelles; Farshid Guilak
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2016-08-15

10.  Pain and Function Recovery Trajectories following Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Short-Term Changes and Comparison with Primary Hip Arthroplasty in the ADAPT Cohort Study.

Authors:  Erik Lenguerrand; Michael R Whitehouse; Vikki Wylde; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Ashley W Blom
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.