Revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening compared with primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: long-term clinical,functional and quality of life outcome data
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2023
Revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening compared with primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: long-term clinical,functional and quality of life outcome data
The aim of this study was the comparative assessment of long-term clinical (subjective and objective), functional and quality of life outcome data between primary and revision THA.
Methods:
122 patients (130 hips) who underwent cementless revision THA of both components (TMT cup, Wagner SL stem, Zimmer Biomet) for aseptic loosening only (Group A) were compared to a matched group of 100 patients (100 hips) who underwent cementless primary THA for osteoarthritis (Synergy stem, R3 cup, Smith & Nephew) (Group B). Outcomes were evaluated with survival analysis curves, Harris Hip Score (HHS), WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and EQ-5D-5L scales. Mobility was assessed with walking speed, Timed Up And Go Test (TUG), Parker Mobility Score, Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) and UCLA scores.
Results:
At a mean follow-up of 11.1 (8–17) years a cumulative success rate of 96% (95% CI, 96–99%) in Group A and 98% (95% CI, 97–99%) in Group B with operation for any reason as an endpoint was recorded. Statistically significant differences between groups were developed for WOMAC (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.014), OHS (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.020) and physical component of SF-12 scores (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.029) only. Group A had less improvement in function as compared with group B. In Group A, in multiple regression analysis, patients’ cognition (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.007) and pain (p = 0.022) were found to be independent factors influencing functional recovery (WOMAC). Similarly, pain (p = 0.03) was found to influence quality of life (EQ-5D-5).
Conclusions:
In the long term, revision THA shows satisfactory but inferior clinical, functional, and quality of life outcomes when compared to primary THA. Residual pain, BMI and cognitive impairment independently affect functional outcomes.
PostlerAEBeyerFWegnerT, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2017; 27: 180–186.
4.
AhmadMAXypnitosFNGiannoudisPV. Measuring hip outcomes: common scales and checklists. Injury2011; 42: 259–264.
5.
MistryJBJaureguiJJLernerAL, et al. An assessment of the comprehensiveness of various hip outcome scores. Surg Technol Int2016; 28: 267–274.
6.
LongoUGCiuffredaMCandelaV, et al. Hip scores: a current concept review. Br Med Bull2019; 131: 81–96.
7.
PaproskyWGAribindiR. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect2000; 49: 119–130.
8.
PaproskyWGPeronaPGLawrenceJM. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty1994; 9: 33–44.
9.
HarrisWH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am1969; 51: 737–755.
10.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 185–190.
11.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRFrostS, et al. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2001; 83: 1125–1129.
12.
BellamyNBuchananWWGoldsmithCH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol1988; 15: 1833–1840.
13.
WareJJrKosinskiMKellerSD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care1996; 34: 220–233.
14.
KoutrasCAntoniouSATaliasMA, et al. Impact of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty on health-related quality of life measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1938–1952.
15.
BrazierJJonesNKindP. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res1993; 2: 169–180.
RappWBraunerTWeberL, et al. Improvement of walking speed and gait symmetry in older patients after hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2015; 16: 291.
18.
FoucherKC. Identifying clinically meaningful benchmarks for gait improvement after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res2016; 34: 88–96.
19.
PodsiadloDRichardsonS. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc1991; 39: 142–148.
20.
ParkerMJPalmerCR. A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75: 797–798.
21.
TerweeCBBouwmeesterWvan ElslandSL, et al. Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2011; 19: 620–633.
22.
BinkleyJMStratfordPWLottSA, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther1999; 79: 371–383.
23.
MehtaSPFultonAQuachC, et al. Measurement properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2016; 46: 200–216.
24.
PuaYHCowanSMWrigleyTV, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale could be an alternative to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function scale. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62: 1103–1111.
25.
DobbsHS. Survivorship of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br1980; 62: 168–173.
26.
CornellCNRanawatCS. Survivorship analysis of total hip replacements. Results in a series of active patients who were less than fifty-five years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am1986; 68: 1430–1434.
27.
RikkertMGTonaKDJanssenLBurnsA, et al. Validity, reliability, and feasibility of clinical staging scales in dementia: a systematic review. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen2011; 26: 357–365.
28.
MorrisJC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology1993; 43: 2412–2414.
29.
AydoganMBurçHSakaG. A new method for the measurement of anteversion of the acetabular cup after total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2014; 24: 897–903.
30.
EnghCABobynJDGlassmanAH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br1987; 69: 45–55.
31.
CallaghanJJSalvatiEAPellicciPM, et al. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am1985; 67: 1074–1085.
32.
BöhmPBischelO. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 420: 148–159.
33.
BrookerAFBowermanJWRobinsonRA, et al. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am1973; 55: 1629–1632.
34.
ArnoldJBWaltersJLFerrarKE. Does physical activity increase after total hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis? A systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2016; 46: 431–442.
35.
BuirsLDVan BeersLWScholtesVA, et al. Predictors of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMJ Open2016; 6: e010725.
36.
DailianaZHPapakostidouIVaritimidisS, et al. Patient-reported quality of life after primary major joint arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2015; 16: 366.
37.
ShanLShanBGrahamD, et al. Total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on mid-term quality of life. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2014; 22: 389–406.
38.
KahlenbergCANwachukwuBUSchairerWW, et al. Patient satisfaction reporting after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthopedics2017; 40: e400–e404.
39.
PatilSGarbuzDSGreidanusNV, et al. Quality of life outcomes in revision vs primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty2008; 23: 550–553.
40.
EspehaugBHavelinLIEngesaeterLB, et al. Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; 351: 135–148.
41.
SalehKJCelebrezzeMKassimR, et al. Functional outcome after revision hip arthroplasty: a metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 416: 254–264.
42.
JudgeAArdenNKBatraRN, et al. The association of patient characteristics and surgical variables on symptoms of pain and function over 5 years following primary hip-replacement surgery: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open2013; 3: e002453.
43.
LübbekeAMoonsKGGaravagliaG, et al. Outcomes of obese and nonobese patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum2008; 59: 738–745.
44.
van DijkGMVeenhofCSpreeuwenbergP, et al. Prognosis of limitations in activities in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a 3-year cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2010; 91: 58–66.
