Jonas Kummerant1,2, Nils Wirries1, Alexander Derksen1, Stefan Budde1, Henning Windhagen1, Thilo Floerkemeier3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 2. BG Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main gGmbH, 60389, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Thilo.floerkemeier@g-o-hannover.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over the last years, the design of implants, the surgical approaches, and diagnostic tools changed in primary and revision of total hip arthroplasty. A knowledge of the different causes for revision after total hip arthroplasty is essential to avoid complications and failures. The purpose of this study was to determine trends of the etiology of implant failures over the last years by analyzing indications of revision hip arthroplasty. METHODS: All the patients who performed revision hip arthroplasties in our institution between 2001 and 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, the indication for revision surgery as well as the procedure were assessed. Descriptive statistical analyses and association analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within our collective of 3450 revision hip arthroplasties, a total of 20 different indications were identified and categorized. Overall, 80.8% of the revisions were categorized as aseptic, 19.2% as septic implant failures. Some recently debated diagnoses like low-grade infection showed a high increase in incidence, whereas classic failure mechanisms like polyethylene wear showed a decrease over the time. In addition, the data revealed that cup loosening caused more revision surgeries than stem loosening. CONCLUSION: This study successfully updated the current knowledge of different failure mechanisms in revision hip arthroplasties. The data proved that cup loosening was the most common failure mechanism in older patients, while in young patients, septic complications showed a high incidence. Probably, due to improved diagnostic tools, the percentage of infection in revision hip arthroplasty increased over the years.
INTRODUCTION: Over the last years, the design of implants, the surgical approaches, and diagnostic tools changed in primary and revision of total hip arthroplasty. A knowledge of the different causes for revision after total hip arthroplasty is essential to avoid complications and failures. The purpose of this study was to determine trends of the etiology of implant failures over the last years by analyzing indications of revision hip arthroplasty. METHODS: All the patients who performed revision hip arthroplasties in our institution between 2001 and 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, the indication for revision surgery as well as the procedure were assessed. Descriptive statistical analyses and association analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within our collective of 3450 revision hip arthroplasties, a total of 20 different indications were identified and categorized. Overall, 80.8% of the revisions were categorized as aseptic, 19.2% as septic implant failures. Some recently debated diagnoses like low-grade infection showed a high increase in incidence, whereas classic failure mechanisms like polyethylene wear showed a decrease over the time. In addition, the data revealed that cup loosening caused more revision surgeries than stem loosening. CONCLUSION: This study successfully updated the current knowledge of different failure mechanisms in revision hip arthroplasties. The data proved that cup loosening was the most common failure mechanism in older patients, while in young patients, septic complications showed a high incidence. Probably, due to improved diagnostic tools, the percentage of infection in revision hip arthroplasty increased over the years.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disclocation; Loosening; Revision hip arthroplasty; Total hip arthroplasty; Trends in hip arthroplasty
Authors: Karsten Ottink; Lex Barnaart; Robin Westerbeek; Karin van Kampen; Sjoerd Bulstra; Hans-Peter van Jonbergen Journal: Hip Int Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Marcel Haversath; Martin Lichetzki; Sebastian Serong; André Busch; Stefan Landgraeber; Marcus Jäger; Tjark Tassemeier Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Ke Zhao; Michael Kelly; Kevin J Bozic Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Henrik Dahlstrand; André Stark; Marius C Wick; Lucas Anissian; Nils P Hailer; Rüdiger J Weiss Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Johannes Beckmann; Dirk Stengel; Markus Tingart; Jürgen Götz; Joachim Grifka; Christian Lüring Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Lina S Silva-Bermudez; Tatyana N Sevastyanova; Christina Schmuttermaier; Carolina De La Torre; Leonie Schumacher; Harald Klüter; Julia Kzhyshkowska Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 7.561