Abstract:Objective To investigate the clinical effects of primary revision after artificial hip replacement and causes of revision surgery. Methods A total of 344 patients who underwent revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and artificial femoral head replacement from January 2010 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 141 males and 203 fe?males, with a mean age 65.64±10.81 years (28-87 years). A total of 351 hip revisions were performed in 344 patients with 7 pa?tients in bilateral revisions. All patients were followed up for 60.38±22.75 months (24-105 months). All patients with periprosthet?ic infection underwent two?stage revision after prosthesis placement, and all others underwent one?stage revision. The clinical out?comes of revision surgery were assessed with the Harris hip score and the survival rate of the revision prosthesis. According to the duration from artificial hip replacement to revision surgery, all patients were divided into early revision (less than 5 years) and late revision (more than 5 years) groups. They were also divided into two groups according to the age of the patient in revision sur?gery:＞55?year?old and≤55?year?old groups. The causes of revision, hip reoperation and re?revision were recorded. Results In the 351 hip revisions, a total of 238 (67.8%) had aseptic loosening, 41 (11.7%) periprosthetic fractures, 30 (8.5%) periprosthetic infection, 23 (6.6%) recurrent dislocation and 19 (5.4%) the eccentric liner wear. The infection rate was significantly higher in the early revision group (21.1%) than that in the late revision group (4.2%) (χ2=24.443, P＜0.001). The aseptic loosening rate was sig?nificantly higher in the late revision group (72.4%) than that in the early revision group (54.4%) (χ2=9.899, P=0.002). Sixteen pa?tients underwent hip surgery after revision, including 6 recurrent dislocations, 4 aseptic loosening, 3 periprosthetic fractures, and 3 periprosthetic infections. Eight of them underwent revision surgery, including 4 cases of aseptic loosening, 2 cases of periprosthet? ic fractures, and 2 cases of recurrent dislocation. The duration from the primary revision to the second revision was 22.1 ± 10.0 months (1-75 months). The 5?year and 8?year survival rates of the revision prostheses were 99.3%[95% CI(98.3%, 100.3%)] and 92.6% [95% CI(87.1%, 98.1%)], respectively. The proportions of prosthetic infection and eccentric liner wear in the≤55?year?old group were significantly higher than those in the＞55?year?old group (χ2=3.981, P=0.046; χ2=5.226, P=0.022), while the propor?tion of aseptic loosening in the＞55?year?old group was significantly higher than that in the ≤55?year?old group (χ2=5.254, P=0.022). The 8?year survival rates of the revision prostheses of ≤55?year?old group and＞55?year?old group were 76.8% [95% CI (50.5% , 103.1% )] and 95.4% [95% CI (91.1% , 99.7% )], respectively. Conclusion Young patients have a higher risk of re?revi?sion after revision THA.

Salvage of failed subtrochanteric fracture fixation in the elderly: revision internal fixation or hip arthroplasty?

Arthroplasty versus Internal Fixation for Displaced Intracapsular Femoral Neck Fracture in the Elderly: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- and Long-term Effectiveness.

Arthroplasty Versus Internal Fixation for Displaced Intracapsular Femoral Neck Fracture in the Elderly

[Mid-Term Follow-Up Study of Hip Arthroplasty for Internal Fixation Failure of Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures in the Elderly].

Salvage total hip arthroplasty after failed internal fixation for proximal femur and acetabular fractures

Total hip arthroplasty for intertrochanteric fracture fixation failure

Hip Arthroplasty for Failed Internal Fixation of Intertrochanteric Fractures

Revision Surgery Risk After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Acute Total Hip Arthroplasty in Geriatric Acetabular Fractures: A Nationwide Study

Hip Arthroplasty for Salvage of Failed Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures in Elderlv Patients

Reoperation rate, mortality and ambulatory ability after internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: a study on Korean Hip Fracture Registry

Surgical Treatments for Vancouver Type B1 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Evaluation of Causes and Clinical Effects of Revision Surgery after Artificial Hip Replacement

Similar Medium-Term Revision Rates Following Acute Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Acetabular Fractures in the Elderly

[Minimal invasion and closed reduction with external fixation for elderly femoral intertrochanteric fracture].

Treatment of Comminuted Trochanteric Fractures and Non-Union of Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): a comparison between osteosynthesis and revision in a retrospective cohort study

Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasty with limited open reduction and internal fixation vs open reduction and internal fixation for geriatric acetabular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open reduction and internal fixation might be a valuable alternative to stem revision in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, irrespective of the stem’s design

Minimally invasive versus conventional fixation of stable intertrochanteric fracture by dynamic hip screw – A prospective study comparing the two techniques

Extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures (AO type 31-A2): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty