Janna van den Kieboom1, Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala1, Liang Xiong1, Christian Klemt1, Young-Min Kwon2. 1. Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 2. Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. YMKWON@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic fracture after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA; TKA) can be challenging, requiring open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), revision, or both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and risk factors associated with re-revision surgery following failed revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture. METHODS: A total of 316 consecutive THA patients and 79 consecutive TKA patients underwent a revision for periprosthetic fracture, of which 68 THA patients (21.5%) and 15 TKA patients (18.9%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common indication for hip and knee re-revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 28 THA patients (46.6%) and 11 TKA patients (47.8%). RESULTS: The complication rates of THA and TKA revision were 24.3% and 25.3% respectively, and 35.0% and 39.1% respectively for re-revision surgery at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Periprosthetic joint infection was the most common indication for THA and TKA re-revision (46.7%; 47.8%) and third revision surgery (15.0%; 13.0%). Factors significantly contributing to an increased risk of THA and TKA re-revision included revision with plate fixation and revision with combined ORIF. CONCLUSION: The overall complication rate of THA and TKA re-revision surgery following failed revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture was higher than of revision surgery. The most common indication for re-revision and third revision was periprosthetic joint infection. These findings may assist surgeons in the management and preoperative counseling of patients undergoing THA and TKA revision surgery for a periprosthetic fracture to optimize the outcomes for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.
INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic fracture after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA; TKA) can be challenging, requiring open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), revision, or both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and risk factors associated with re-revision surgery following failed revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture. METHODS: A total of 316 consecutive THA patients and 79 consecutive TKA patients underwent a revision for periprosthetic fracture, of which 68 THA patients (21.5%) and 15 TKA patients (18.9%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common indication for hip and knee re-revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 28 THA patients (46.6%) and 11 TKA patients (47.8%). RESULTS: The complication rates of THA and TKA revision were 24.3% and 25.3% respectively, and 35.0% and 39.1% respectively for re-revision surgery at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Periprosthetic joint infection was the most common indication for THA and TKA re-revision (46.7%; 47.8%) and third revision surgery (15.0%; 13.0%). Factors significantly contributing to an increased risk of THA and TKA re-revision included revision with plate fixation and revision with combined ORIF. CONCLUSION: The overall complication rate of THA and TKA re-revision surgery following failed revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture was higher than of revision surgery. The most common indication for re-revision and third revision was periprosthetic joint infection. These findings may assist surgeons in the management and preoperative counseling of patients undergoing THA and TKA revision surgery for a periprosthetic fracture to optimize the outcomes for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.
Authors: S M Javad Mortazavi; Mark F Kurd; Benjamin Bender; Zachary Post; Javad Parvizi; James J Purtill Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Robert Pivec; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Jeffery J Cherian; Aditya V Maheshwari; Peter M Bonutti; Michael A Mont Journal: J Long Term Eff Med Implants Date: 2015
Authors: Kevin J Bozic; Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Vanessa Chiu; Thomas P Vail; Harry E Rubash; Daniel J Berry Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Mustafa Akkaya; Georges Vles; Iman Godarzi Bakhtiari; Amir Sandiford; Jochen Salber; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.075