Functional and Radiological Outcome of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Indonesian National Referral Hospital
Abstract
Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) rate has increased until 12-20% in the past few decades, despite the 95% success rate of THA approach in 10 years and 80% in 20 years. The most common causes of rTHA are dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection. This study is aimed to describe the outcome of rTHA in Indonesia where there are limited types of revision implant and funding.
Material and Methods: An analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 31 rTHA in the Indonesian national referral hospital from January 2014 to December 2019. Data on the causes of rTHA was extracted. All subjects met the criteria underwent examination for functional outcome (Harris hip score) and radiological outcome (Harris or Engh criteria). All complications and outcomes after rTHA were identified.
Results: Sixteen subjects met the criteria with the mean age of 48.13 (18.74). The most common causes of rTHA were dislocation, aseptic loosening, and perirosthetic joint infection (five cases each, 31.25%). The Harris hip score after complete rTHA was 79.42 (SD 6.14, range 70.50 – 91) with the mean follow up of 29.50 (SD 16.88, range 7 – 70 months). Only one possible loosening was identified in hybrid prosthesis (femoral component) from radiological exam. Three complications were observed, i.e. drop foot, recurrent dislocation, and extension knee contracture.
Conclusion: Revision THA produces fair to good results in terms of functional outcome and no loosening in radiological exam. Revision THA is still a reliable technique to manage complications of THA.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
References
Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF: Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: Factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:171-177.
Lübbeke A, Silman AJ, Barea C et al (2018) Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. J Health Pol 122:548– 557. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.healt hpol.2018.03.010
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee 209 arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:780–5. 210 doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.
Zhan C, Kaczmarek R, Loyo-Berrios N, Sangl J, Bright RA. Incidence and short-term outcomes of primary and revision hip replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:526-533
Bozic KJ, Kamath AF, Ong K, et al: Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: Failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop 2015;473:2131-8
Barrack RL, Burnett SJ. Preoperative planning for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2005;87A:2800–2811
Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, et al. reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 2001;83A:1040–1046
Brown MD, Gomez-Martin O, Brookfield KFW, et al. Differential diagnosis of hip disease versus spine disease. Clin Orthop 2004;419: 280–28
Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop 1990;257:107–128
Saleh KJ, Celebrezze M, Kassim R, et al. Functional outcome after revision hip arthroplasty-A Metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;416:254-264
Hendricks KJ, Harris WH, High placement of noncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg 2006;88A:2231-2236
Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA, et al. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg 2005;87A:1795–1800.
Rahman WA, Amenabar T, Hetaimish BM, Safir OA, Kuzyk PR, Gross AE. Outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty in management of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:2559-2563
Davis AM, Agnidis Z, Badley E, Kiss A, et al. Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2006;88A:685–691
Kelmer G, Stone AH, Turcotte J, King PJ. Reasons for Revision: Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Mechanisms of Failure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 00:1-10
Pallaver A, Zwicky L, Bolliger L, Bosebeck H, et al. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented femoral component. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Society 2018; 138:1609-1616
Jamali AA, Dungy DS, Mark A, et al. Isolated acetabular revision with use of the Harris-Galante cementless component. Study with intermediate term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A(8):1690–1697
Engelbrecht DJ, Weber FA, Sweet MBE, Jakim I. Long term results of revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1990; 72-B: 41-5
Pallaver A, Zwicky L, Bolliger L, Bosebeck H, et al. Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented femoral component. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Society 2018; 138:1609-1616
Smith MA, Deakin AH, Allen D, Baines J. Midterm Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty using a Modular Revision Hip System. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31:446-450
Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Bissett GA, et al. Surgical treatment of limb length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A(12):2310–2317
Unger AS, Lewis MD, Gruen T. Evaluation of a Porous Tanatalum Uncemented Acetabular Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiological Results of 60 Hips. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (8): 1002-1009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46355/hipknee.v3i1.116
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Knee and Hip Journal has been indexed and abstracted in the following databases:
