{"title":"Periprocedural clinical outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty: a multi-centric comparison of current strategies based on the NSQIP.","authors":"Halil Bulut, Maria Maestre, Daniel Tomey","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05519-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent projections suggest a substantial rise in demand for revision total hip arthroplasties, emphasizing the need for optimized perioperative care. Various revision techniques, such as isolated acetabular or femoral component revisions and total replacements, have garnered attention. Further research is needed to establish the most effective strategies for improving clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis utilized data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File from 2016 to 2021. The study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing combined acetabular and femoral (A + F) revision, acetabulum-only (A) revision, and femoral side-only (F) revision surgeries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of 18,888 patients revealed crucial differences in preoperative and postoperative outcomes among various revision strategies. Specifically, there were notable variations in patient demographics, comorbidities, and emergency procedures. Postoperative data showed distinct rates of mortality, complications, and readmissions across the groups. Notably, femoral component revisions were associated with increased risks of mortality, transfusion, and urinary tract infections, underscoring the need for careful evaluation and consideration when opting for this revision approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study's significance lies in its extensive patient cohort and multifaceted evaluation of revision strategies. Although consensus is lacking on single-component revisions, targeting the acetabulum component appears relatively safer. Continued research and individualized evaluations are crucial for refining revision strategies and optimizing outcomes in THA revisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"4707-4713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05519-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Recent projections suggest a substantial rise in demand for revision total hip arthroplasties, emphasizing the need for optimized perioperative care. Various revision techniques, such as isolated acetabular or femoral component revisions and total replacements, have garnered attention. Further research is needed to establish the most effective strategies for improving clinical outcomes.
Methods: This retrospective analysis utilized data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File from 2016 to 2021. The study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing combined acetabular and femoral (A + F) revision, acetabulum-only (A) revision, and femoral side-only (F) revision surgeries.
Results: The analysis of 18,888 patients revealed crucial differences in preoperative and postoperative outcomes among various revision strategies. Specifically, there were notable variations in patient demographics, comorbidities, and emergency procedures. Postoperative data showed distinct rates of mortality, complications, and readmissions across the groups. Notably, femoral component revisions were associated with increased risks of mortality, transfusion, and urinary tract infections, underscoring the need for careful evaluation and consideration when opting for this revision approach.
Conclusion: The study's significance lies in its extensive patient cohort and multifaceted evaluation of revision strategies. Although consensus is lacking on single-component revisions, targeting the acetabulum component appears relatively safer. Continued research and individualized evaluations are crucial for refining revision strategies and optimizing outcomes in THA revisions.
期刊介绍:
"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance.
"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).