Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2024; 08(02): 075-083
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1778087
Original Article

Time to Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Impacts Short-Term Outcomes Following Surgery

Nathan A. Lorentz 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Mackenzie A. Roof
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Thomas Christensen
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
David Yeroushalmi
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Vinay K. Aggarwal 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Morteza Meftah
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Previous reports have investigated the correlation between time to revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and reason for revision, but little is known regarding the impact of timing on outcomes following rTHA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of time to rTHA on outcomes following rTHA. This retrospective observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTHA at an academic orthopaedic hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with at least 1-year of follow-up. Patients were categorized as early revisions if revised within 2 years of primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) or late revisions if revised after more than 2 years from pTHA. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Multiple linear regression and binary logistic regression were used to determine significance of outcomes while controlling for confounding variables. Of the 467 cases, 150 underwent early revision and 317 underwent late revision. Early revisions experienced longer hospital length of stays (LOSs, days; 4.93 ± 3.93 vs. 3.28 ± 2.09; p < 0.001), all-cause 90-day readmission rates (11.3 vs. 12.7%; p = 0.032). Across all revision types, multivariate analysis revealed that time to rTHA (p < 0.001) and revision type (0.008) were found to be significant predictors of LOS while controlling for patient factors. Subanalyses within each revision type (femoral, acetabular, head/liner, and full) further reveal that time to rTHA is a significant independent predictor of LOS. Early revisions had a greater proportion of femoral revisions (44.0 vs. 15.5%), and late revisions had a greater proportion of head/liner (43.2 vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001) revisions. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts with respect to discharge disposition, surgical time, all-cause 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, re-revisions, and number of re-revisions. Patients undergoing aseptic rTHA within 2 years of index pTHA had longer LOS and greater rates of readmission. Time to rTHA is a significant independent predictor of LOS across and within all revision types and reason for revision aside from liner exchange and trunnionosis. No differences were seen in operative time, discharge disposition, re-revision, mortality, reoperation, and ED admission between early and late rTHAs across all revision subtypes. Level of evidence is III, retrospective observational analysis.

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty - revision total hip arthroplasty - timing - outcomes


Publication History

Received: 28 August 2022

Accepted: 17 November 2023

Article published online:
19 January 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS. et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2088-2092
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ong KL, Mowat FS, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern MT, Kurtz SM. Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 22-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (07) 1487-1497
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D. et al. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?. Int Orthop 2008; 32 (05) 597-604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Singh J, Politis A, Loucks L, Hedden DR, Bohm ER. Trends in revision hip and knee arthroplasty observations after implementation of a regional joint replacement registry. Can J Surg 2016; 59 (05) 304-310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Werner BC, Brown TE. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop 2012; 3 (08) 122-130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Losina E, Barrett J, Mahomed NN, Baron JA, Katz JN. Early failures of total hip replacement: effect of surgeon volume. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50 (04) 1338-1343
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Rajaee SS, Campbell JC, Mirocha J, Paiement GD. Increasing burden of total hip arthroplasty revisions in patients between 45 and 64 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (06) 449-458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Dossett HG, Chesser MS. Improving care and reducing length of stay in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Fed Pract 2017; 34 (10) 38-41
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schwarz JS, Lygrisse KA, Roof MA, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf RM, Hepinstall MS. Early, mid-term, and late-term aseptic femoral revisions after THA: comparing causes, complications, and resource utilization. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (10) 3551-3555
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Quinlan ND, Werner BC, Brown TE, Browne JA. Risk of prosthetic joint infection increases following early aseptic revision surgery of total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (12) 3661-3667
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Blom AW, Artz N, Beswick AD. et al. Improving Patients' Experience and Outcome of Total Joint Replacement: The RESTORE Programme. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Goldman AH, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW, Berry DJ, Abdel MP. Aseptic reoperations within 1 year of primary total knee arthroplasty markedly increase the risk of later periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (12) 3668-3672
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Dargel J, Oppermann J, Brüggemann GP, Eysel P. Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111 (51–52): 884-890
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pathak N, Kahlenberg CA, Moore HG, Sculco PK, Grauer JN. Thirty-day readmissions after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: rates, predictors, and reasons vary by surgical indication. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (12) 3673-3678
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Shen TS, Gu A, Bovonratwet P, Ondeck NT, Sculco PK, Su EP. Etiology and complications of early aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty within 90 days. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (05) 1734-1739
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Yoshimoto K, Nakashima Y, Aota S. et al. Re-dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation: a multicentre study. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (02) 253-258
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Graves SE, Rothwell A, Tucker K, Jacobs JJ, Sedrakyan A. A multinational assessment of metal-on-metal bearings in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (Suppl. 03) 43-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855) 1759-1766
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar