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.

Infection and periprosthetic fracture are the leading causes of failure after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty

High Rates of Early Septic Failure, But Low Rates of Aseptic Loosening after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Contemporary Rotating-Hinge Prostheses

Failed 2-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

Complications of periprosthetic fracture revision vs aseptic revision of total knee arthroplasty

A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement

The Microbiology of Knee Prosthetic Joint Infection and its Influence on Persistent Infection

Complications associated with 133 static, antibiotic-laden spacers after TKA

Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty

Use of Hinged Implants for Multi-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Severe Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Remission Rate and Outcomes After a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years

Revision TKA with a distal femoral replacement is at high risk of reinfection after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic knee joint infection

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

Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection

Differences in Success Rate of Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee Depending on the Applied Definition

Trends in Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection: A Single-Center Study of 384 Knees at a High-Volume Center Between 2008 and 2021

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

Two-stage knee arthrodesis with a modular intramedullary nail due to septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty with extensor mechanism deficiency

Temporal Trends in the Rate of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Joint Infection

Unexpected positive cultures in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty

Unbalanced metaphyseal fixation is associated with an increased aseptic loosening of revision total knee arthroplasty at mean 4-year follow-up

Early Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Microorganisms, Mortality, and Implant Survival Using a Combined Dataset From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register and the Dutch National Nosocomial Surveillance Network

Prosthetic knee infection by resistant bacteria: the worst-case scenario