Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Research Articles

Contemporary Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients ≤50 Years of Age: Results of >500 Cases.

There has been a paucity of long-term outcomes data on aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the young adult population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age at the time of the surgical procedure. We identified 545 aseptic revision THAs performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2020 in patients who were 18 to 50 years of age. Patients who underwent conversion THAs and patients with a history of any ipsilateral hip infection were excluded. The mean age was 43 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and 63% were female. The index indication for revision THA was aseptic loosening in 46% of cases, polyethylene wear or osteolysis in 28% of cases (all revisions of conventional polyethylene), and dislocation in 11% of cases. There were 126 hips (23%) that had undergone at least 1 previous revision (median, 1 revision [range, 1 to 5 revisions]). The mean follow-up was 10 years. In the entire cohort, the 20-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 76% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 69% to 82%). There were 87 re-revisions, with 31 dislocations, 18 cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and 16 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) being the most common reasons for re-revision. Dislocation as the indication for the index revision was associated with an increased risk of re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.9; p < 0.001). The 20-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 73% (95% CI, 66% to 78%). There were 75 nonoperative complications (14%), including 32 dislocations. The mean Harris hip score significantly improved (p < 0.001) from 65 preoperatively to 81 at 10 years postoperatively. Contemporary aseptic revision THAs in patients ≤50 years of age demonstrated a re-revision risk of approximately 1 in 4 at 20 years. Dislocation, aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and PJI were the most common reasons for re-revision. Index revision THAs for dislocation had a 3 times higher risk of re-revision. Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Through an Anterior Approach: Survivorship and Risk Factors for Re-Revision

BackgroundThe utilization of anterior-based approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. Literature on the outcomes of revision THA (rTHA) through an anterior approach, however, is sparse. This study reports the survivorship and risk factors for re-revision in patients undergoing aseptic rTHA through an anterior approach. MethodsThis was a single-institution, retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent aseptic rTHA through an anterior approach (direct anterior, anterior-based muscle sparing) from January 2017 to December 2021, regardless of the original surgical approach. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, conversion THA, and septic revisions. Patient demographics, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to measure survivorship while Cox regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for re-revision of THA. ResultsWe identified 251 total anterior rTHAs, of which 155 were aseptic anterior revisions. There were 111 patients (111 rTHAs; 63 anterior-based muscle sparing and 48 direct anterior) who met criteria and had a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 2.1 to 6.9). There were a total of 54 (49%) anterior-based index approaches and 57 (51%) posterior index approaches. The most common indications for rTHA were femoral loosening (n = 25, 22.5%), followed by instability (n = 16, 14.4%) and wear or osteolysis (n = 16, 14.4%). At 2 years, the survivorship from reoperation and re-revision was 89% (95% confidence interval: 84 to 95) and 91% (95% confidence interval: 86 to 96), respectively. Reoperation occurred in 14 patients (12.6%) at a mean time of 7.8 months (range, 0.5 to 28.6). Re-revision occurred in 12 patients (10.8%) at a mean time of 7.3 months (range, 0.5 to 28.6). Instability was the most common reason for re-revision (4.5%). Neither index approach type, revision approach type, nor any patient-specific risk factors were identified as predictors of re-revision or reoperation in multivariable regression analysis. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates an acceptable rate of re-revision when aseptic rTHA is performed through an anterior approach, with the most common reason for aseptic re-revision being instability.

Antibiotic prophylaxis before tissue biopsy has no effect on culture results in presumed aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is considered to be the gold standard for revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) due to the high incidence of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). To diagnose PJI, intraoperative tissue biopsies for culture are of particular importance. However, antibiotic interference could theoretically lead to less reliable culture results. Currently, there is no consensus on whether AP should be administered before or after tissue biopsy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of AP timing on culture results and PJI rates in presumed aseptic R-THA. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study among 490 patients was performed; 61 patients received AP pre-incision, and 429 patients received AP post-biopsy. At least three intraoperative tissues were sampled for each patient and cultured for a minimum of 2 weeks. Minimum follow-up was 6 months. Epidemiological and clinical data (including culture results and incidence of PJI during follow-up) were gathered and analyzed. Results: Positive (4.9 % vs. 5.4 %, ) and contaminated culture results (23.0 % vs. 22.6 %, ) were not significantly different between pre-incisional and post-biopsy AP administration. Post-operative PJI incidence during follow-up was 1.6 % and 3.0 %, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (). Conclusion: Pre-incisional AP administration does not yield fewer culture results compared to post-biopsy AP administration. Although statistically not significant, PJI during follow-up was almost twice as high when AP was withheld until after tissue biopsy. Other literature also supports the additional protective benefit of pre-incisional AP. Therefore, we believe pre-incisional AP administration is preferable for presumed aseptic R-THA.

Infection Rates After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

Few US studies have investigated the efficacy of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA). This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-THA performed with EOAP with PJI rates in published studies of aseptic R-THA patients not receiving EOAP. Prospectively documented data on 127 consecutive aseptic R-THAs were retrospectively reviewed. Evidence-based perioperative infection prevention protocols were used, and all patients were discharged on 7-day EOAP. Superficial and deep infections at 30 and 90 days postoperatively and at mean latest follow-up of 27.8 months were statistically compared with all US studies reporting the prevalence of PJI after aseptic R-THA. Complications related to EOAP within 120 days of the index procedure also are reported. No superficial or deep infections were observed at 30 and 90 days postoperatively when 7-day postdischarge EOAP was used. Superficial and deep infection rates were 1.57% (two patients) and 3.15% (four patients) at mean latest follow-up, respectively. Comparisons with published 30-day PJI rates of 1.37% ( P = 0.423) and 1.85% ( P = 0.257) were not statistically significant. Two of four comparisons with published 90-day PJI rates of 3.43% ( P = 0.027) and 5.74% ( P = 0.001) were statistically different. The deep PJI rate of 3.15% at mean latest follow-up was significantly lower than two of three published rates at equivalent follow-up including 10.10% ( P = 0.009) and 9.12% ( P = 0.041). No antibiotic-related complications were observed within 120 days of the index procedure. Study findings possibly support the use of EOAP after aseptic R-THA to prevent catastrophic PJI with revision implants, indicating that the efficacy of EOAP cannot be definitively ruled-in or ruled-out based on available evidence.

Point-of-Care Coating of Revision Femoral Stems With Antibiotic-Loaded Calcium Sulfate: Reduction in Infection After 2nd Stage Reimplantation but Not With Aseptic Revisions

BackgroundInfection rates in revision total hip arthroplasty are lower when antibiotic loaded cemented stems are utilized. Inspired by this technique, a point-of-care coating of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate (CaSO4) was applied to cementless revision stems in aseptic revision and 2nd stage reimplantation total hip arthroplasty. MethodsOne hundred eleven consecutive femoral stems were coated. Just prior to insertion, 10 cc of CaSO4 was mixed with 1 g vancomycin and 240 mg tobramycin with the paste applied to the stem. The results were compared to a matched cohort (N = 104) performed across the previous 5 years. The surgical methods were comparable, but for the stem coating. The study group was followed for a minimum of 3 years. ResultsIn the study cohort of 111 patients, there were 69 aseptic revisions with one periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (1.4%) and 42 second-stage reimplantations with 2 PJIs (4.8%). In the control cohort of 104 patients, there were 74 aseptic revisions with one PJI (1.4%) and 30 second-stage reimplantations with 7 PJIs (23.3%). There was no significant reduction in PJI rate in the aseptic revision subgroup (1.4% study vs 1.4% control group), P = 1.000. Antibiotic stem coating reduced PJI rate in the 2nd stage reimplantation subgroup (23.3% control vs 4.8% study group), P = .028. In both groups, there were no cases of aseptic stem loosening. ConclusionsPoint-of-care antibiotic coating of cementless revision femoral stems reduces PJI infection rate in 2nd stage reimplantations only. We theorize that microbes persist in the endosteal cortices after resection and may contribute to infection recurrence.

Trends in Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Utilization Following Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty From 2010 to 2022

BackgroundIn patients considered high-risk for infection, extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been demonstrated to reduce rates of prosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although national guidelines regarding their use have not yet been created, the increase in literature surrounding EOA prophylaxis suggests a potential change in practice patterns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the trends in utilization of EOA prophylaxis following THA from 2010 to 2022 and identify prescription patterns. MethodsA total of 646,059 primary THA and 51,879 aseptic revision THA patients were included in this study. Patients who underwent primary or aseptic revision THA between 2010 and 2022 were identified in a national administrative claims database. Rates and duration of EOA prescriptions were calculated. A secondary analysis examined rates of utilization across demographics, including patients considered high risk for infection. ResultsFrom 2010 to 2022, utilization of EOA increased by 366% and 298% following primary and revision THA, respectively. Of patients prescribed postoperative antibiotics, 30% and 59% were prescribed antibiotics for more than 7 days following primary and revision THA, respectively. Rates of utilization were similar between high-risk individuals and the general population. ConclusionsRates of utilization of EOA prophylaxis after THA have increased significantly since 2010. As current trends demonstrate a wide variation in prescription patterns, including in length of antibiotic duration and in patient population prescribed, guidelines surrounding the use of EOA prophylaxis after THA are necessary to promote antibiotic stewardship while preventing rates of periprosthetic joint infection.

Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics for Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThere is growing interest in extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EAP) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, the benefit of EAP remains controversial. For this investigation, both oral and intravenous antibiotic protocols were included in the EAP group. MethodsThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Ovid Embase, Elton B. Stephens CO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were queried for literature comparing outcomes of primary and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who were treated with either ≤24 hours of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (standard of care [SoC]) or >24 hours of EAP. The primary outcome was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). A pooled relative-risk random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model was implemented to compare cohorts. ResultsThere were 18 studies with a total of 19,153 patients included. There was considerable variation in antibiotic prophylaxis protocols with first-generation cephalosporins being the most commonly implemented antibiotic for both groups. Patients treated with EAP were 35% less likely to develop PJI relative to the SoC (P = .0004). When examining primary TJA, patients treated with EAP were 39% and 40% less likely to develop a PJI for TJA (P = .0008) and THA (P = .02), respectively. There was no significant difference for primary TKA (P = .17). When examining aseptic revision TJA, EAP led to a 36% and 47% reduction in the probability of a PJI for aseptic revision TJA (P = .007) and aseptic revision TKA (P = .008), respectively; there was no observed benefit for aseptic revision THA (P = .36). ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that patients treated with EAP were less likely to develop a PJI relative to those treated with the SoC for all TJA, primary TJA, primary THA, aseptic revision TJA, and aseptic revision TKA. There was no significant difference observed between EAP and SoC for primary TKA or aseptic revision THA.

Chronic Anticoagulation is Associated With Increased Risk for Postoperative Complications Following Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundWith an aging global population, the incidence of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is expected to increase markedly. While patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty who require chronic anticoagulation (AC) have been associated with increased postoperative complications, less is known about the impact of chronic AC status on postoperative complications in the rTHA setting. This study sought to compare complication rates following aseptic rTHA between patients who were on chronic AC and those who were not. MethodsA large national database was utilized to retrospectively identify 9,421 patients who underwent aseptic rTHA between 2014 and 2019. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: 1,790 patients (19.0%) were in the chronic AC cohort (ie, having an AC prescription filled within 6 months prior to and following rTHA), and 7,631 patients (81.0%) were not on chronic AC. Postoperative complications at 90-days and 2-years were compared between cohorts utilizing univariate and multivariate analyses, controlling for sex, age, and comorbidities. ResultsAt 90-days, chronic AC patients had increased odds of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) (odds ratio [OR] 3.2, P < .001), surgical site infections (OR 3.6, P < .001), and mechanical prosthetic complications (OR 3.5, P < .001), which included any aseptic loosening, implant dislocation, or broken prosthetic. At 2-years, chronic AC patients had increased odds of PJI (OR 3.3, P < .001) as well as mechanical prosthetic complications (OR 3.2, P < .001). Chronic AC patients were also at increased risk for reoperation within 2 years after initial aseptic rTHA (OR 1.9, P < .001). ConclusionsPatients on chronic AC have significantly higher odds of 90-day and 2-year complications after aseptic rTHA. This includes increased odds of PJI, surgical site infection, and mechanical prosthetic complications. Patients receiving chronic AC who undergo rTHA should be counseled on the risk-benefit ratio of their chronic AC status in a multidisciplinary setting to optimize their postoperative outcomes.

Incidence and Predictors of Subsidence Using Modular, Tapered, Fluted Titanium Femoral Stems in Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundTapered, fluted titanium (TFT) femoral stems have become the gold standard in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, there is a paucity of data on TFT stem subsidence rates following aseptic rTHA. Subsidence can lead to instability, mechanical failure, leg-length discrepancy, and may require revision surgery. This study evaluated the incidences and predictors of TFT subsidence in aseptic rTHA. MethodsA total of 102 TFT femoral stems of 4 designs were retrospectively reviewed. Stem subsidence was measured on digital radiographs taken immediately after surgery and at standard clinical follow-up. Patient characteristics, risk factors for subsidence, revision etiologies, and implant characteristics were recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures were also evaluated for a subset of cases. ResultsOverall, 12% of stems subsided >1 cm, and subsidence was minimal (<3 mm) in ≥64% of cases. From immediate postoperative to 1-month radiographic follow-up, 79% of stems subsided a mean of 2.9 mm (range, 0.1 to 12 mm). Beyond 1 month, subsidence was minimal for ≥77% of cases. In multivariate analyses, women and less femoral implant canal fill were associated with greater subsidence (P ≤ .034). The TFT stem design was not associated with early subsidence (P = .816). There were no modular junction fractures. There were 2 fractures and 2 subsidence-related revisions for aseptic loosening that occurred postoperatively. ConclusionsThe amount of subsidence in TFT stems was low and was detectable in the early (less than 1 year) postoperative period. Maximizing TFT stem fill within the femoral canal appears to reduce the risk of subsidence without increasing femoral fracture rates and should be the goal with implantation of these devices. Level of EvidenceIV–Case Series, No Control Group.

Utility of histopathological examination in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: a preliminary analysis.

The utility of a routine histopathological examination in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has not been well explored. We aim to describe the approach and present the results of histopathological examination, focusing on its clinical usefulness in the setting of aseptic revision THA. We retrospectively reviewed 285 performed aseptic revision THA with available histopathological reports between 2015 and 2017 at a single institution. We described histopathological requests by the surgical team. Preoperative diagnoses, intraoperative findings, as well as histopathology and culture results were analysed. 13 painful THAs (4.5%) had preoperatively unknown diagnoses. In 10 of them, potential causes of pain were intraoperatively identified. Histopathology confirmed these findings in 8 THAs. 19 THAs (6.7%) revealed unexpected positive cultures (UPC). Histopathology was negative for infection in 18 of them. Among 16 consultants, 3 surgeons requested histopathology in 47% of the cases (130/285), usually to exclude infection (101/285; 35%). Documentation for tissue sample location was lacking in 51% (145/285), and for question asked by the surgeon in 47% (135/285). Histopathology is deemed a useful confirmatory tool in the context of ruling out infection in UPCs, and in documenting intraoperative findings in painful THAs with unknown preoperative diagnoses. Importantly, the approach to requesting histopathology should be optimised. Further large-scale studies, including cost analyses, are warranted to explore the usefulness of histopathology in routine utility.

Age-Adjusted Modified Frailty Index Predicts 30-Day Complications and Mortality in Aseptic Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe age-adjusted modified frailty index (aamFI) has been demonstrated to effectively predict postoperative complications and healthcare resource utilization in patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the applicability of aamFI in patients undergoing aseptic revision total hip (rTHA) and knee arthroplasty (rTKA). MethodsA national database was queried for patients undergoing aseptic rTHA and rTKA from 2015 to 2020. A total of 13,307 rTHA and 18,762 rTKA cases were identified. The aamFI was calculated by adding 1 additional point for age ≥73 years to the previously described 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5). The area under the curve was calculated and compared to compare predictive accuracy between mFI-5 and aamFI. Logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between aamFI and 30-day complications. ResultsThe incidence of incurring any (≥1) complication increased from 15% for aamFI 0 to 45% for aamFI ≥5 after rTHA and from 5 to 55% after rTKA. Patients who had an aamFI ≥3 (reference aamFI = 0) had increased odds (rTHA: odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.9 to 4.1, P < .001; rTKA: OR 4.2, 95% CI 4.4 to 5.1, P < .001) of incurring at least 1 complication. The aamFI, compared to mFI-5, was a more accurate predictor of any complication (rTHA P < .001; rTKA P < .001) and 30-day mortality (rTHA P < .001; rTKA P < .003). ConclusionThe aamFI is an excellent predictor of complications in patients undergoing rTHA and rTKA. The addition of chronological age to the previously described mFI-5 improves the predictive value of this simple metric.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

Time Required for Planned and Unplanned Episodes of Care in Aseptic Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty

BackgroundStudies indicate aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) requires much more effort but is reimbursed less than primary procedures per minute work time. This study quantified planned and unplanned work performed by the surgeon and/or their team during the entire episode of care “reimbursement window” and compared it to allowed reimbursement times by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MethodsBetween October, 2010, and December, 2020, all unilateral aseptic rTHA and rTKA procedures performed by a single surgeon at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Time dedicated to planned work was calculated from surgery scheduling to 90 days postoperative. Impromptu patient inquiries and treatments after discharge but within the episode of care, involving the surgeon/surgeon team constituted unplanned work. Planned and unplanned work minutes were summed and divided by the number of patients reviewed to obtain average minutes of work per patient. Work time was compared to CMS allowable times for rTHA (617 minutes) and rTKA (520 minutes). ResultsThere were 292 Aseptic rTKA and 63 aseptic rTHA procedures included. Based upon CMS allowable times per patient there were a mean of 4.4 hours (267 minutes) of uncompensated care time per rTKA patient and a mean of 2.4 hours (141 minutes) of uncompensated care time per rTHA patient. ConclusionAseptic revisions are substantially more complex than primaries, requiring work effort that is not commensurate with current reimbursements. Financially disincentivizing surgeons to care for patients requiring revision surgery could reduce patient access to care when high quality care is needed the most.

What is the rate of successful closed reduction of dislocated dual mobility cups following complex revision hip arthroplasty?

The aim of this study was to assess the difference in success rates of closed reduction in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed with a dual mobility (DM) implant. Our objective was to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a difference in success rates of closed reduction between septic and aseptic revision THA with a DM implant? (2) Is closed or open reduction more successful in preventing re-dislocation? Between January 2009 and October 2021, 924 revisions were performed with a DM implant. All patients presenting to our institution with a dislocation following septic or aseptic revision THA using a cemented DM cup were included in this study. We analyzed 106 cases of dislocation in 74 patients. For all patients, we collected reason for revision, and classified index surgery as septic or aseptic. Overall, 106 dislocations occurred (106/924, 11.5%). Thirty-nine cases (52.7%) had a dislocation after a septic exchange THA, while in 35 patients (47.3%), a dislocation occurred after an aseptic rTHA. In 29 patients (39.2%), successful closed reduction under general anesthesia was feasible, while the majority of cases required open reduction. In 31 of these patients (67.4%), open reduction was combined with a revision arthroplasty. In case of DM cupdislocation, there is a low success rate of closed reduction. To prevent re-dislocation, total revision leads to a significantly reduced risk compared to open or closed reductionalone. Careful X-rayanalysis for a halo sign showingintra-prosthetic DM cupdislocation is mandatory to avoid futile reduction attempts. III.

Hepatitis C Is Associated With Higher Short-Term Complication Rates After Initial Aseptic and Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundIt is unclear if hepatitis C virus (HCV) negatively impacts outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of this study is to trend recent rTHA utilization in patients who have HCV and compare postoperative complication rates versus a matched cohort. MethodsAll patients who underwent rTHA were retrospectively identified in a national database. Patients who had HCV (n = 1,746) were matched 1:3 with a matching group (n = 5,238) for age, gender, and several comorbidities. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to analyze trends in the annual proportion of rTHA performed in patients who had HCV from 2010 to 2019. Rates of 90-day medical and prosthesis-related complications within 2 years postoperatively were compared with multivariable logistic regressions. ResultsThe annual proportion of rTHA performed in patients who had HCV significantly increased from 2010 to 2019 (P < .001). Patients who had HCV exhibited significantly higher rates of acute kidney injuries (7.6% versus 4.4%; odds ratio [OR] 1.50), transfusions (20.6% versus 14.6%; OR 1.38), and re-revisions for prosthetic joint infection (10.9% versus 6.5%; OR 1.73). In subgroup analyses, rates of re-revision for prosthetic joint infection after initial aseptic rTHA (7.1% versus 3.8%; OR 1.82) and periprosthetic fracture after initial septic rTHA (4.5% versus 1.6%; OR 2.77) were significantly higher in the HCV cohort. ConclusionSimilar to primary THA, patients who have HCV exhibit significantly increased complication rates after rTHA. With growing utilization in recent years, these data suggest that this population will comprise an increasingly larger proportion of rTHA procedures performed in the coming years.

Accelerated Discharge After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Does Not Predict Inferior 30-Day Outcomes

BackgroundPerioperative advancements have made outpatient primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) a viable option for patients. This study evaluated the feasibility of expedited discharge after revision THA and compared 30-day outcomes to patients who had prolonged inpatient hospitalizations. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge would not result in inferior 30-day outcomes. MethodsAseptic revision THAs in a national database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. THAs were stratified by hospital length of stay (LOS) more or less than 24 hours. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative laboratory values, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores, operative times, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariable analyses evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations. Of 17,044 aseptic revision THAs, 211 were discharged within 24 hours. ResultsAccelerated discharge patients were younger, mean age 63 years (range, 20-92) versus 66 years (range, 18-94) (P < .01) had lower body mass index, mean 28.7 (range, 18.3-46.4) versus 29.9 (range, 17.3-52.5) (P = .01), and ASA scores (ASA, 1-2; 40.4-57.8%) (P < .01). Components revised had no association with LOS (P = .39); however, operative times were shorter and mean 100 minutes (range, 35-369) versus 139 minutes (range, 24-962) (P < .01) in accelerated discharge patients. Accelerated discharge patients had lower readmission rates (P < .01) but no difference in reoperation rates (P = .06). ConclusionDischarge less than 24 hours after revision THA is a feasible option for the correct patient and further efforts to decrease LOS should be evaluated.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Revisions: A Preliminary Report

BackgroundIt is unknown whether extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis reduces periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after aseptic revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature is scarce. Therefore, we sought to ascertain whether EOA prophylaxis decreases PJI rates after aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA when compared to standard prophylaxis. MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 328 consecutive revisions (3 surgeons, single institution, from September 27, 2017 to December 31, 2019). Preoperative 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, radiographs, and medications were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA. Exclusion criteria were positive intraoperative cultures and/or histology, PJI (2013 MSIS criteria), hemiarthroplasty/partial arthroplasty revision, revision using foreign material (ie, mesh), metastatic bone disease, and intravenous antibiotics >24 hours after surgery. A total of 178 revisions were included, and 2 groups were set apart based on antibiotic prophylactic regime. The following were the groups: (1) EOA prophylaxis (>24 hours, n = 93) and (2) standard prophylaxis (≤24 hours, n = 85). Demographics, joint types, lengths of stay, skin-to-skin operative times, revision types, transfusions, discharge dispositions, and PJIs (per 2013 MSIS criteria) after the first-time revision were compared between groups. There were no significant differences in demographics. However, skin-to-skin operative time was significantly higher in the EOA group (123 minutes versus 98 minutes, P = .01). Mean follow-up was 849 days (range, 15-1,671). Statistical significance was set at a P value lower than .05. ResultsPostoperative PJI rates were not significantly different: 2.2% EOA prophylaxis versus 3.5% standard prophylaxis (P = .671). ConclusionNo significant difference was found between PJI rates between both prophylactic regimens. A large multicenter study with a larger sample size is needed to support EOA after aseptic revisions. Level of EvidenceLevel III.

Postoperative outcomes and survival rates after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty : What can patients expect from revision surgery?

In 2020, more than 14,000 aseptic revision procedures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were registered in Germany. Patient expectations of revision hip arthroplasty are not substantially different from expectations of primary hip replacement. However, revision surgery is associated with increased complication rates and ahigher proportion of dissatisfied patients. In particular, poorer postoperative function and mobility as well as increased pain levels following revision THA have been described compared to the outcome after primary THA. Quality of life and return-to-work can also be impaired. Implant survival is influenced by age, BMI, and comorbidities of the patients, but also by the size and complexity of bone defects, the extent of periprosthetic soft tissue compromise and the choice of revision implant(s). In addition, the number of previous revision surgeries inversely correlates with the survival rates. Previous revisions have been shown to be associated with increased risks of aseptic loosening, instability and periprosthetic infection.

Aseptic Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Single Modular Femoral Stem and a Modified Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy-Treatment Assessment With the Forgotten Joint Score-12.

BackgroundAseptic loosening is among the most common reasons for revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Modular revision stems implanted through an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) promise good results, but patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are rarely conveyed. This study used the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) to assess patient-reported outcome in patients who had undergone RTHA for aseptic stem loosening using a modified ETO approach with a tapered, fluted modular stem.Material and methodsA single-center analysis of aseptic RTHA was performed (2007–2019). Clinical results (range of motion, walking ability, function), radiographic results (ETO healing, stem subsidence), and PROMs (FJS-12, Harris Hip Score, European Quality of Life 5D Score) were assessed. Minimum follow-up duration was 1 year. Complications including revisions were recorded.ResultsPrimary outcome parameters were assessed on 72 patients (mean age 73.3 years, mean body mass index 27.6kg/m2). Additional PROMs were collected by phone interviews from 41 patients (mean follow-up 5.7 years). In 76%, leg length was restored, and a normal gait was achieved. After 1 year, the ETO was healed in 93%; subsidence occurred in 8.3% of cases. The mean FJS-12 at the final follow-up was 85.6 ± 23.6, and the respective Harris Hip Score and European Quality of Life 5D Score averaged 87 ± 17.8 and 72.9 ± 15.9. Complication and revision rates were 33.3% and 13.9%, respectively.ConclusionAseptic RTHA as presented here resulted in excellent PROMs in the medium term. FJS-12 score averaged 85.6 with a mean follow-up of 5.7 years. Treatment using a modular implant and a modified ETO was associated with good clinical and radiographic outcomes. Complication and revision rates were 33.3% and 13.9%, respectively.

Outcomes of isolated head-liner exchange versus full acetabular component revision in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.

Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures. This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0-8.6) years. In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62-3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40-6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87-5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94-4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years. In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.