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.

[One-Stage Revision Operations for Infection after Hip Arthroplasty].

Partial Two?stage Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Total Hip Arthroplasty

Partial Two-Stage Exchange: an Alternative Method for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

Management of the infected total hip or knee arthroplasty with two-staged revisions

Related factors and intervention analysis of periprosthetic infections in patients with total hip arthroplasty

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Hip Infection: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Treatment of Postprosthesis Infection by Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

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

Can a 1.5-Stage Revision Be an Effective Alternative for Chronic Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer in second-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty

Survivorship and Outcomes of 2-Stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Mean of 7-Year Follow-Up

[The mid-term follow-up of revision total knee athroplasty].

Acute Delayed or Late Infection of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Treated with Debridement/Antibiotic-loaded Cement Beads and Retention of the Prosthesis

Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty

TWO-STAGE REVISION FOR PROSTHESES INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH BONE TUMOR AFTER KNEE PROSTHETIC REPLACEMENT

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ninety-day postoperative mortality and complications in continuous and unselected single-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infection

Revision Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Post Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty of 34 Hospitals in China Between 2015 and 2017: a Multi-Center Survey

Total Hip Arthroplasty for Patients with Osteoarthritis Secondary to Hip Pyogenic Infection.

Diagnosis and treatment of delayed infection after hip arthroplasty

[Two-stage total hip arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for infected internal fixation of hip fractures]