Indications, Clinical Outcomes, and Re-Revisions Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty - Does Age Matter?

BACKGROUND

Younger age is associated with increased revision incidence following primary total hip arthroplasty, though the association between age and repeat revision following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been described. This study aimed to describe the incidences and indications for subsequent revision (re-revision) following rTHA based on age.

METHODS

Patients undergoing aseptic rTHA from 2011 to 2021 with minimum 1-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on age at the time of index rTHA (ie, <55 years, 55 to 74 years, and >74 years). Perioperative characteristics, complications, and re-revisions were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of 694 included rTHAs, those in the >74 age group were more likely to undergo rTHA for periprosthetic fracture (P < .001) while those in the <55 age group were more likely to undergo rTHA for metallosis/taper corrosion (P = .028). Readmissions (P = .759) and emergency department visits (P = .498) within 90 days were comparable across ages. Rates of re-revision were comparable at 90 days (P = .495), 1 year (P = .443), and 2 years (P = .204). Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause re-revision at latest follow-up showed a nonstatistically significant trend toward increasing re-revisions in the <55 and 55 to 74 age groups. Using logistic regressions, smoking and index rTHA for instability were independently associated with re-revision, while age at index surgery was not.

CONCLUSIONS

While indications for rTHA differ across age groups, rates of 2-year re-revision are statistically comparable between groups. Further studies are warranted to understand the association between age, activity, and re-revision rates after 5 years postoperatively.