Oakley Christian T, Stiles Elizabeth R, Ronan Emily M, Shichman Ittai, Rozell Joshua C, Schwarzkopf Ran
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Sourasky Medical Center, Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, 6423906, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Nov;143(11):6935-6943. doi: 10.1007/s00402-023-04965-0. Epub 2023 Jul 5.
To improve revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) prognosis and postoperative management, a better understanding of how non-elective and elective indications influence clinical outcomes is needed. We sought to compare ambulatory status, complication rates, and implant survival rates in patients who underwent aseptic rTHA for periprosthetic fracture or elective indications.
This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTHA patients with a minimum follow-up of two years at a single tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into two groups: fracture rTHA (F-rTHA) if the patient had a periprosthetic femoral or acetabular fracture, and elective rTHA (E-rTHA) if the patient underwent rTHA for other aseptic indications. Multivariate regression was performed for clinical outcomes to adjust for baseline characteristics, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess implant survival.
A total of 324 patients (F-rTHA: 67, E-rTHA: 257) were included. In the F-rTHA cohort, 57 (85.0%) and 10 (15.0%) had femoral and acetabular periprosthetic fractures, respectively. F-rTHA patients were more likely to be discharged to skilled nursing (40.3% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.049) and acute rehabilitation facilities (19.4% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.004). F-rTHA patients had higher 90-day readmission rates (26.9% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.033). Ambulatory status at three months postoperatively significantly differed (p = 0.004); F-rTHA patients were more likely to use a walker (44.6% vs. 18.8%) and less likely to ambulate independently (19.6% vs. 28.6%) or with a cane (28.6% vs. 41.1%). These differences did not persist at one and two years postoperatively. Freedom from all-cause re-revision (77.6% vs. 74.7%, p = 0.912) and re-revision due to PJI (88.1% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.206) were similar at five-year follow-up.
Compared to rTHA performed for elective aseptic indications, fracture rTHA patients had poorer early functional outcomes, with greater need for ambulatory aids and non-home discharge. However, these differences did not persist long term and did not portend increased infection or re-revision rates.
为改善翻修全髋关节置换术(rTHA)的预后及术后管理,需要更好地了解非择期和择期适应症如何影响临床结果。我们试图比较因假体周围骨折或择期适应症接受无菌性rTHA的患者的活动状态、并发症发生率和植入物存活率。
这项回顾性研究检查了在单一三级转诊中心进行的所有无菌性rTHA患者,这些患者至少随访两年。患者分为两组:如果患者发生假体周围股骨或髋臼骨折,则为骨折rTHA(F-rTHA);如果患者因其他无菌性适应症接受rTHA,则为择期rTHA(E-rTHA)。对临床结果进行多变量回归以调整基线特征,并进行Kaplan-Meier分析以评估植入物存活率。
共纳入324例患者(F-rTHA:67例,E-rTHA:257例)。在F-rTHA队列中,分别有57例(85.0%)和10例(15.0%)发生股骨和髋臼假体周围骨折。F-rTHA患者更有可能被转至专业护理机构(40.3%对22.2%,p = 0.049)和急性康复机构(19.4%对7.8%,p = 0.004)。F-rTHA患者90天再入院率更高(26.9%对16.0%,p = 0.033)。术后三个月的活动状态有显著差异(p = 0.004);F-rTHA患者更有可能使用助行器(44.6%对18.8%),独立行走(19.