Articles Vol. 65 No. CĐ11- HN Chấn thương Chỉnh hình-TPHCM 02/12/2024

43. ANALYZE THE CAUSES OF FAILURE AFTER HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOR REVISION INDICATIONS WITH 98 CASES OF HIP REVISION

Tran Nhu Buu Hoa1,2, Dong Trong Tan1,2, Pham Y Khoa1,2
1 Quy Hoa Central Dermatology Hospital, Facility 2
2 Bệnh viện Da Liễu Trung ương Quy Hòa cơ sở 2
Corresponding author: drbuuhoatran@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v65iCD11.1780
16 Views
17 Downloads
Keywords
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) Hip arthroplasty (HA) Hip Revision (HR) Long stem of Wagner Prosthetic Joint Infection (PJI)
Abstract

Purpose: We researched this topic with the main purpose of determining and analyzing the causes of failure after hip arthroplasty (HA) consist of the prevalence of injuries, clinical characteristics and the reasons of damage to the artificial joint, requiring revision surgery. Thereby evaluating the initial results after hip revision surgery according to the corresponding damage.

Materials and methods: Retrospectively describe and analyze 98 cases of joint revision surgery, performed at Quy Hoa Hospital, from 2014 to 2023. We reviewed each patient's data stored by the surgeon and in the recorded medical records including clinical and radiological features, operative reports, and reasons for the patient's visit, the cause of the injury led to the decision to re-operate. Results of the surgery were evaluated according to the Modified Harris Hip Score. The longest follow-up time after Revision surgery is 6 years, the shortest is 1 year. All data were analyzed, processed using software SPSS 20.0.

Results: 51.8% were aseptic stem-loosening, of which 21.6% were early loosening after HA due to technical errors and 30.2% were late stem-loosening due to osteoporosis in the elderly. 14.2% is cemented periprosthetic osteolysis over 10 years, 10.3% is deep infection and 9.3% is instability-dislocation. Instability- dislocation is the reason for early surgery for the patient. All revision surgeries for stem loosening were cementless and Wagner's long stem had good results. The overall result of good or better is 88.5%.

Conclude: Failure after HA/THA is increasingly common and needs to be carefully researched to come up with the best strategy, which is the key to success in the very difficult surgical decision. It also provides a partial picture of the frequency of causes of failure after primary HA, as a basis for indications for re-operation, and some valuable experience in techniques to get the next step results.

References
[1]
Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF: Twenty-five years survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: Factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg 84A:171-177, 2002. Google Scholar
[2]
Blackley HRL, Davis AM, Hutchinson CR, Gross AE: Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip: A nine to fifteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 83A:346-354, 2001. Google Scholar
[3]
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Berry DM: The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 91 (2009), pp. 128-133 Google Scholar
[4]
Callaghan JJ, Albright JC, Goetz DD, Olejniczak JP: Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement: Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 82A:487-497, 2000. Google Scholar
[5]
Clohisy JC, Harris WH: The Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation: An average ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 81A:66-73, 1999. Google Scholar
[6]
Clohisy JC, Harris WH: Matched-pair analysis of cemented and cementless acetabular reconstruction in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16:697-705, 2001. Google Scholar
[7]
Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B: Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop 413:175-182, 2003. Google Scholar
[8]
Duncan CP, O’Brien PJ, Masri BA: Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 17 (2009), pp. 677-688 Google Scholar
[9]
Hernandez-Barrera VM, Chana-Rodriguez F: Trends in incidence and outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty in Spain: A population based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 13 (2012), pp. 37 Google Scholar
[10]
Huo MH, Brown BS: What’s new in hip arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg 85A:1852-1864, 2003. Google Scholar
[11]
Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC: Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with improved cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg 79B:322-326, 1997. Google Scholar
[12]
Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE, Lauro GR: Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. J Bone Joint Surg 76A:965-973, 1994. Google Scholar
[13]
Lavigne MJ, Sanchez AA, Coutts RD: Recurrent dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: treatment with an Achilles tendon allograft. J Arthroplasty, 16 (2001), pp. 13-18 Google Scholar
[14]
Malchau H, Herberts P, Annfelt L: Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 64:497-506, 1993. Google Scholar
[15]
Maloney WJ, Herzwurm P, Paprosky W, Rubash HE, Engh CA: Treatment of pelvic osteolysis associated with a stable acetabular component inserted without cement as part of a total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 79A:1628-1634, 1997. Google Scholar
[16]
Masonis JL, Bourne RB: Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop 405:46-53, 2002. Google Scholar
[17]
Melvin JS, Cope RE, FehringTK: Early failures in total hip arthroplasty – a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty, 29 (2014), pp. 1285-1288 Google Scholar
[18]
Moskat JT, Capps SG, Scanelli JA: Improving the accuracy of acetabular component orientation: avoiding malpositioning: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 95 (2013), pp. e761-e810 Google Scholar
[19]
Moojen DJ, Vogely HC, Burger BJ et al: Incidence of low-grade infection in aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasty.Acta Orthop, 81 (2010), pp. 667-673 Google Scholar
[20]
Münger P, Röder D, Ackermann U: Patient-related risk factors leading to aseptic stem loosening in total hip arthroplasty: a case–control study of 5035 patients. Acta Orthop, 77 (2006), pp. 567- 574. Google Scholar
[21]
Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J: Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 369:230-242, 1999. Google Scholar