Systematisation of the causes that required revision hip replacement, methods of their solution, treatment results in Ukraine.

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to organise data on complications following total hip replacement (THA) over a span of 10 years, specifically focussing on cases that necessitated revision endoprosthetic surgeries. The objective is to create a recommendation for an All-Ukrainian registry of initial and repeated hip arthroplasty (HA) and standardise the terminology used to define "revision of total hip replacement surgery".

METHODS

The retrospective analysis examined 236 instances of revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) performed at the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics Centre between January 2005 and December 2021. The primary factors for revision were identified through an analysis of the patient's medical records, laboratory results, visual inspection, and the state of the previously implanted prosthesis. Demographic information, primary and revision HA dates, diagnoses, and causes of complications were recorded. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistica package (StatSoft), version 12.6 (2015), with a significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Out of the 364 patients who were diagnosed with complications, 236 of them (55.17%) needed a procedure called 1rTHA. Among these cases, 152 (41.76%) were specifically diagnosed with aseptic component instability. Significant factors for mechanical loosening were a high body mass index (BMI ≥ 30) and older age, with respective t-values of 2.08 (p = 0.004) and 2.59 (p = 0.045). Osteoporosis significantly contributed to aseptic loosening and fractures around the implant. The occurrence of infectious complications was frequently linked to chronic infectious diseases (t = 3.37, p = 0.001). The overall percentage of need for 2rTHA was 27.22% (43 cases), with one case of infectious lesion following the revision.

CONCLUSIONS

The study emphasises the urgent requirement for standardised terminology and a comprehensive registry for hip arthroplasty procedures. Primary results indicate that cement-free fixation is more effective than cement-based fixation for revision in patients with aseptic instability and that two-stage arthroplasty is effective for treating infectious inflammation. Furthermore, the most effective treatment for femoral fractures with periprosthetic involvement was determined to be open repositioning and osteosynthesis with metal retainers. The aforementioned observations emphasise the need to create a comprehensive registry across Ukraine to support patient care, enable evidence-based practices, and enhance the overall effectiveness of hip arthroplasty operations.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.