What Has Changed in the Structure of Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The key aspects of the study: 1) what has changed in the structure of revisions in recent years? 2) what is the spectrum of reasons for revision after primary hip arthroplasty and re-revision? 3) what are the demographic features of patients’ population undergoing the revision? Materials and methods. The authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 2415 hip revision cases during the period of time from 2014 until 2018. Separately the authors assessed revisions after primary surgeries and re-revisions as well as the group of early revisions. Results. In the period from 2014 until 2018 the overall share of revisions was 16,6% from all total hip arthroplasties, at the same time the authors reported the absolute 1.7 times increase in number of revisions as well as increased share of revisions in the total structure of hip arthroplasty from 12,5% to 18,9% without significant variances in the number of primary procedures. The share of early revisions increased from 32.9% in 2013 to 56.7% while the number of early revisions amounted to 37.4% of all primary revisions. Gender composition in primary and revision hip arthroplasty varied insignificantly. Mean age at the moment of hip revision was 59.2% (95% CI from 58.7 to 59.7; Me 60 years) which is slightly less than in primary replacement — 60.2 years (95% CI from 58.9 to 61.1; Me 62 years), but such variances had a high statistical significance, р<0.001. The main reasons for primary revisions were aseptic loosening of prosthesis components (50.3%), infection (27.6%), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (9.0%) as well as dislocations (6,2%). Re-revisions structure featured prevalence of infection (69.0%), aseptic loosening (20.8%) and dislocations (7,8%). Mean period of time after primary hip arthroplasty to revision was 7.9 years (95% CI from 7.7 to 8.2; Me 7.3), to first re-revision — 2.9 (95% CI from 2.6 to 3.2; Me 1.2), to second re-revision — 2.2 (95% CI from 1.8 to 2.7; Me 1.1), to third — 2,2 (95% CI from 1.7 to 2.8; Me 1.1), to fourth — 1.0 (95% CI from 0.6 to 1.3; Me 0.6), remaining cases demonstrated rather high heterogeneity. Conclusion. In the result of the present study the authors observed increased number of all revision hip arthroplasties, especially the share of early revisions within first five years from the moment of previous surgery. The most often reason for revision after primary hip arthroplasty was aseptic loosening of one or both components of prosthesis. Infection was the absolute leader in the group of re-revisions constituting over half of all reasons for secondary intervention.

About the authors

I. I. Shubnyakov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: shubnyakov@mail.ru
Igor I. Shubnyakov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Chief Researcher Russian Federation

R. M. Tikhilov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics;
Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Rashid M. Tikhilov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Director

professor, Traumatology and Orthopedics Department

Russian Federation

A. O. Denisov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Alexey O. Denisov — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Academic Secretary Russian Federation

M. A. Akhmedilov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Magomed A. Akhmedilov — Clinical Resident Russian Federation

A. Zh. Cherny

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Andrey Zh. Cherny — Cand. Sci. (Med), Clinical Director Russian Federation

Z. A. Totoev

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Zaurbek A. Totoev — Assistant Researcher Russian Federation

A. A. Javadov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Alisagib A. Javadov — Assistant Researcher, Scientific Department of Hip Pathology Russian Federation

A S. Karpukhin

Federal Center of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Arthroplasty

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Aleksey S. Karpukhin — Head of Department Russian Federation

Yu. V. Muravyeva

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru
Yulia V. Muravyeva — IT engineer, Department of Information Technology Russian Federation

References

  1. Кавалерский Г., Мурылев В., Рукин Я., Середа А., Гаврилов А., Архипов И. и др. Компьютерное планирование эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава при дисплазии. Врач. 2015;(12):7-10.
  2. Кавалерский Г.М., Середа А.П., Мурылев В.Ю., Рукин Я.А., Гаврилов А.В., Архипов И.В. и др. 2D-планирование эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2015;(4):95-102. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2015-0-4-95-102.
  3. Коваленко А.Н., Шубняков И.И., Тихилов Р.М., Чёрный А.Ж. Обеспечивают ли новые и более дорогие имплантаты лучший результат эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава? Травматология и ортопедия России. 2015;(1):5-20. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2015-0-1-30-36.
  4. Мурылев В.Ю., Елизаров П.М., Рукин Я.А., Рубин Г.Г., Куковенко Г.А. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава как возможность улучшения качества жизни пациентов старческого возраста с ложным суставом шейки бедренной кости. Успехи геронтологии. 2017;30(5):725-732.
  5. Kovochich M., Finley B.L., Novick R., Monnot A.D., Donovan E., Unice K.M. et al. Understanding outcomes and toxicological aspects of second generation metal-on-metal hip implants: a state-of-theart review. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018;48(10):853-901. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1563048.
  6. Pabinger C., Lothaller H., Portner N., Geissler A. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip Int. 2018;28(5):498-506. doi: 10.1177/1120700018757940.
  7. Varnum C. Outcomes of different bearings in total hip arthroplasty — implant survival, revision causes, and patient-reported outcome. Dan Med J. 2017;64(3). pii: B5350.
  8. Николаев Н.С., Малюченко Л.И., Преображенская Е.В., Карпухин А.С., Яковлев В.В., Максимов А.Л. Применение индивидуальных вертлужных компонентов в эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава при посттравматическом коксартрозе. Гений ортопедии. 2019; 25(2):207-213. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2019-25-2-207-213.
  9. Gwam C.U., Mistry J.B., Mohamed N.S., Thomas M., Bigart K.C., Mont M.A. et al. Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2088-2092. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.046.
  10. Nho S.J., Kymes S.M., Callaghan J.J., Felson D.T. The burden of hip osteoarthritis in the United States: epidemiologic and economic considerations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21 Suppl 1:S1-S6. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-S1.
  11. Vanhegan I.S., Malik A.K., Jayakumar P., Ul Islam S., Haddad F.S. A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(5):619-623. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27073.
  12. Afzal I., Radha S., Smoljanović T., Stafford G.H., Twyman R., Field R.E. Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1304-9.
  13. Близнюков В.В., Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков И.И., Денисов А.О., Шильников В.А., Черный А.Ж., Билык С.С. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава у пациентов со сложной деформацией бедренной кости после оперативного лечения дисплазии. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2014;(4):5- 15. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-4-5-15.
  14. Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков И.И., Денисов А.О., Плиев Д.Г., Шубняков М.И., Ваграмян А.Г., Авдеев А.И. Имеется ли клинический смысл в разделении врожденного вывиха бедра у взрослых на типы C1 и C2 по Hartofilakidis? Травматология и ортопедия России. 2019;25(3):9-24. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-3-9-24.
  15. Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков М.И., Бояров А.А., Денисов А.О., Шубняков И.И. Влияние различных факторов на темпы износа полиэтиленового вкладыша в эндопротезах тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2018;24(1):18-28. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-1-18-28.
  16. Boyer B., Bordini B., Caputo D., Neri T., Stea S., Toni A. What are the influencing factors on hip and knee arthroplasty survival? Prospective cohort study on 63619 arthroplasties. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(7):1251-1256. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.07.020.
  17. Peters R.M., van Steenbergen L.N., Stewart R.E., Stevens M., Rijk P.C., Bulstra S.K., Zijlstra W.P. Patient Characteristics Influence Revision Rate of Total Hip Arthroplasty: American Society of Anesthesiologists Score and Body Mass Index Were the Strongest Predictors for Short-Term Revision After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019. pii: S0883- 5403(19)30755-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.024.
  18. Podmore B., Hutchings A., van der Meulen J., Aggarwal A., Konan S. Impact of comorbid conditions on outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e021784. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021784.
  19. Tsukanaka M., Halvorsen V., Nordsletten L., EngesæTer I.Ø., EngesæTer L.B., Marie Fenstad A., Röhrl S.M. Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(5):479-484. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1212180.
  20. Zeng W.N., Liu J.L., Jia X.L., Zhou Q., Yang L., Zhang Y. Midterm Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With High Hip Dislocation After Suppurative Hip Arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(1):102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.081.
  21. Dale H., Børsheim S., Kristensen T.B., Fenstad A.M., Gjertsen J.E., Hallan G. et al. Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women - data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2019;30:1-9. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1682851.
  22. Mäkelä K.T., Furnes O., Hallan G., Fenstad A.M., Rolfson O., Kärrholm J. et al. The benefits of collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):391-400. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180058.
  23. Рукин Я., Мурылев В., Лычагин А., Елизаров П., Грицюк А., Явлиева Р. Ревизионное эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава у пациентов с диссоциацией костей таза. Врач. 2017;(12):66-70.
  24. Konopka J.F., Lee Y.Y., Su E.P., McLawhorn A.S. QualityAdjusted Life Years After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Health-Related Quality of Life After 12,782 Joint Replacements. JBJS Open Access. 2018;3(3):e0007. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007.
  25. Postler A.E., Beyer F., Wegner T., Lützner J., Hartmann A., Ojodu I., Günther K.P. Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2017;27(2):180-186. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000436.
  26. Delanois R.E., Gwam C.U., Piuzzi N.S., Chughtai M., Malkani A.L., Bonutti P.M., Mont M.A. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Orthopedic Literature in Medical JournalsIs It Negatively Biased? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(2): 615-619. doi :10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.017.
  27. Arden N., Altman D., Beard D., Carr A., Clarke N., Collins G. et al. Lower limb arthroplasty: can we produce a tool to predict outcome and failure, and is it costeffective? An epidemiological study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Jun.
  28. Wilson I., Bohm E., Lübbeke A., Lyman S., Overgaard S., Rolfson O. et al. Orthopaedic registries with patientreported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):357-367. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080.
  29. Шубняков И.И., Тихилов Р.М., Николаев Н.С., Григоричева Л.Г., Овсянкин А.В., Черный А.Ж. и др. Эпидемиология первичного эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава на основании данных регистра артропластики РНИИТО им. Р.Р. Вредена. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2017;23(2): 81-101. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2017-23-2-81-101.
  30. Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков И.И., Коваленко А.Н., Тотоев З.А., Лю Б., Билык С.С. структура ранних ревизий эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2014;(2):5-13. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2014-0-2-5-13.
  31. Melvin J.S., Karthikeyan T., Cope R., Fehring T.K. Early failures in total hip arthroplasty - a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1285-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.024.
  32. Jafari S.M., Coyle C., Mortazavi S.M., Sharkey P.F., Parvizi J. Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(8):2046-2051. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1251-6.
  33. Lindgren V., Gordon M., Wretenberg P., Kärrholm J., Garellick G. Deep infection after total hip replacement: a method for national incidence surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(12):1491-1496. doi: 10.1086/678600.
  34. Материалы Второй международной согласительной конференции по скелетно-мышечной инфекции. Председатели: проф. Дж. Парвизи, проф. Т. Герке. Под общ. ред. Р.М. Тихилова, С.А. Божковой, И.И. Шубнякова. СПб.: РНИИТО им. Р.Р. Вредена, 2019. 314 с.
  35. Renard G., Laffosse J.M., Tibbo M., Lucena T., Cavaignac E., Rouvillain J.L. et al. Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision. Int Orthop. 2019 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s00264-019-04366-2. [Epub ahead of print].
  36. Engesæter L.B., Dale H., Schrama J.C., Hallan G., Lie S.A. Surgical procedures in the treatment of 784 infected THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(5):530-537. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.623572.
  37. Wolff M., Lausmann C., Gehrke T., Zahar A., Ohlmeier M., Citak M. Results at 10-24 years after single-stage revision arthroplasty of infected total hip arthroplasty in patients under 45 years of age. Hip Int. 2019 Nov 25:1120700019888877. doi: 10.1177/1120700019888877.
  38. Parvizi J., Shohat N., Gehrke T. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: new guidelines. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):3-10. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-1212.R1.
  39. Löwik C.A.M., Parvizi J., Jutte P.C., Zijlstra W.P., Knobben B.A.S., Xu C. et al. Northern Infection Network Joint Arthroplasty (NINJA) and ESCMID study group for implant-associated infections (ESGIAI). Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention is a viable treatment option for early periprosthetic joint infection presenting more than four weeks after index arthroplasty. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 31. pii: ciz867. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz867. [Epub ahead of print].
  40. Weber P., Paulus A.C., Hallmen D., Steinbrück A., Schmidutz F., Jansson V. [Does the certification according to EndoCert lead to a better quality of treatment?]. Orthopade. 2017;46(1):78-84. (In German). doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3356-4.
  41. Kuijpers M.F.L., Hannink G., Vehmeijer S.B.W., van Steenbergen L.N., Schreurs B.W. The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):385. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2765-z.
  42. Smith L.K., Dures E., Beswick A.D. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness for long-term follow-up of total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Res Rev. 2019;11:69-78. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S199183.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 82474 от 10.12.2021.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies