Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger.

The Iowa orthopaedic journal Pub Date : 2023-12-01
Frank W Parilla, Charles P Hannon, Gail E Pashos, Karla J Gresham, John C Clohisy
{"title":"Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger.","authors":"Frank W Parilla, Charles P Hannon, Gail E Pashos, Karla J Gresham, John C Clohisy","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The annual volume of patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty prior to age 60 is projected to increase considerably. Despite this, outcome data for revision THA in these younger patients remain limited. The purpose of this study was to define implant survivorship, identify risk factors for re-revision, and determine clinical outcomes of revision THA in patients aged ≤60 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified 191 revision THAs performed in patients aged ≤60 years. Minimum 4-year follow-up was obtained in 141 (73.8%) hips (mean 10.3 years [range, 4-20]). Mean age was 48 years (range, 20-60). Forty-five hips (32%) had previously been revised. Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (28%), polyethylene wear (26%), dislocation (20%), and infection (14%). Outcome measures were Kaplan-Meier survival free from re-revision and patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, UCLA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survivorship free from re-revision for any cause was 78% [95% CI=70-85] at five years and 71% [62-78] at ten years. The most common indication for re-revision at both five and ten years was dislocation (12% [8-19], 16% [10-23]), followed by infection (6% [3-12], 10% [5-18]) and aseptic loosening (2% [1-7], 4% [1-11]). Mean scores were improved from baseline at six (mHHS +21.4, UCLA +0.9) and twelve years (mHHS +13.4, UCLA +0.5).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision THA in patients less than 60 years of age was associated with considerably lower rates of early loosening-related failure than historically reported. Recurrent dislocation and infection appear to remain challenges in this population. Despite improvements in survivorship from earlier studies, patient-reported functional improvements remained relatively unchanged. <b>Level of Evidence: IV</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":94233,"journal":{"name":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","volume":"43 2","pages":"38-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10777697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The annual volume of patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty prior to age 60 is projected to increase considerably. Despite this, outcome data for revision THA in these younger patients remain limited. The purpose of this study was to define implant survivorship, identify risk factors for re-revision, and determine clinical outcomes of revision THA in patients aged ≤60 years.

Methods: We identified 191 revision THAs performed in patients aged ≤60 years. Minimum 4-year follow-up was obtained in 141 (73.8%) hips (mean 10.3 years [range, 4-20]). Mean age was 48 years (range, 20-60). Forty-five hips (32%) had previously been revised. Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (28%), polyethylene wear (26%), dislocation (20%), and infection (14%). Outcome measures were Kaplan-Meier survival free from re-revision and patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, UCLA).

Results: Survivorship free from re-revision for any cause was 78% [95% CI=70-85] at five years and 71% [62-78] at ten years. The most common indication for re-revision at both five and ten years was dislocation (12% [8-19], 16% [10-23]), followed by infection (6% [3-12], 10% [5-18]) and aseptic loosening (2% [1-7], 4% [1-11]). Mean scores were improved from baseline at six (mHHS +21.4, UCLA +0.9) and twelve years (mHHS +13.4, UCLA +0.5).

Conclusion: Revision THA in patients less than 60 years of age was associated with considerably lower rates of early loosening-related failure than historically reported. Recurrent dislocation and infection appear to remain challenges in this population. Despite improvements in survivorship from earlier studies, patient-reported functional improvements remained relatively unchanged. Level of Evidence: IV.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
60 岁及以下患者接受全髋关节置换术翻修后的效果。
背景:预计每年需要在 60 岁之前进行翻修全髋关节置换术的患者人数将大幅增加。尽管如此,这些年轻患者翻修全髋关节置换术的结果数据仍然有限。本研究的目的是确定植入物的存活率,识别再次翻修的风险因素,并确定60岁以下患者翻修THA的临床结果:我们确定了 191 例年龄在 60 岁以下的翻修型 THA 患者。对 141 个(73.8%)髋关节进行了至少 4 年的随访(平均 10.3 年[4-20 年])。平均年龄为 48 岁(20-60 岁不等)。45个髋关节(32%)曾进行过翻修。翻修指征包括无菌性松动(28%)、聚乙烯磨损(26%)、脱位(20%)和感染(14%)。结果测量指标为Kaplan-Meier无再翻修存活率和患者报告结果评分(mHHS,加州大学洛杉矶分校):结果:五年内无任何原因再次手术的存活率为78% [95% CI=70-85],十年内为71% [62-78]。五年和十年后再次手术最常见的原因是脱位(12% [8-19]、16% [10-23]),其次是感染(6% [3-12]、10% [5-18])和无菌性松动(2% [1-7]、4% [1-11])。6年(mHHS +21.4,UCLA +0.9)和12年(mHHS +13.4,UCLA +0.5)时的平均评分较基线有所提高:结论:与历史报道相比,60岁以下患者的翻修THA与早期松动相关的失败率要低得多。复发性脱位和感染似乎仍是这一人群面临的挑战。尽管与早期研究相比,患者的存活率有所提高,但患者报告的功能改善情况仍相对未变。证据等级:IV级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pain Management for Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Systematic Review. Peri-Operative Management of Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Report of Current Practices from the Anchor Group, Supporting Literature, and Areas for Future Investigation. Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Very Young Children - A Case Report and Modern Review. Predicting Septic Arthritis in the Setting of Crystalline Arthropathy in the Native Joint Using Laboratory Data. Predictive Factors for Intraoperative Determination for the Need of Femoral Osteochondroplasty After Periacetabular Osteotomy for Acetabular Dysplasia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1