Revision Total Hip Replacement Research Articles

Trabecular Metal Augments for Reconstruction of Acetabular Bone Defects in Revision Total Hip Replacement: Short-Term Outcomes

Trabecular Metal Augments for Reconstruction of Acetabular Bone Defects in Revision Total Hip Replacement: Short-Term Outcomes

HOW MUCH DO HIP ARTHROPLASTIES COST? THE BURDEN AND BUDGET IMPACT OF IMPLANTS AND HIP ARTHROPLASTY ON THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups.Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants.The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low.The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties.

ESTIMATING THE COSTS, HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE, AND REVISION RISK IN THE YEAR AFTER ELECTIVE PRIMARY AND REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY PROCEDURES BY IMPLANT BEARING MATERIALS: AN ANALYSIS OF LINKED DATA FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY (NJR), HOSPITAL EPISODE STATISTICS (HES), AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES (PROMS) FOR ENGLISH PATIENTS

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data.We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS.We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively).Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types.

SHORT-TERM COMPLICATIONS AND REOPERATION RATES AFTER HIP ARTHROSCOPY: A REVIEW OF 22,401 CASES IN ENGLAND FROM 2010 TO 2023

Hip arthroscopy (HA) is an effective treatment for various hip conditions but has a steep learning curve and its effect on long-term joint preservation is unclear. This study uses population-level data to assess (1) the 90-day complication rate, and (2) the frequency and timing of revision HA, total hip replacement (THR), and pelvic osteotomy (PO) following primary HA.We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Episode Statistics database, examining all patients who underwent primary HA in NHS hospitals in England from 2010 to 2023 using relevant OPCS-4 codes. We evaluated patient demographics, 90-day complications, and reoperation rates for revision HA, THR, and PO. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to calculate frequencies and average time to reoperations.We included 22,401 HA procedures in the study. The mean LOS was 0.82±2.04 days. The 90-day readmission rate was 0.17% at a mean of 54.4±8.1 days. The most common reasons for readmission were reoperation (0.071%), followed by infection (0.031%), pulmonary embolism (0.027%), pain (0.022%), bleeding (0.018%), and deep vein thrombosis (0.004%). One patient died within 90 days.Overall, 4942 patients (22.1%) required further surgery at a mean of 2.71±2.27 years. The rates of revision HA, conversion to THR, and PO were 6.94%, 14.6%, and 0.50% at a mean of 2.39±1.79, 2.87±2.46, and 2.26±1.80 years respectively. Female patients had higher rates of reoperation than males for conversion to THR (9.99% vs 4.63%), revision HA (4.92% vs 2.02%), and subsequent PO (0.43% vs. 0.06%) (p<0.001).This study demonstrates a low short-term complication rate after primary HA, supporting existing literature. However, a large proportion of patients required further surgery, especially females. These findings highlight the need for careful patient selection and counselling before HA to optimise outcomes, as well as further research on factors influencing longer-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Management of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement: a narrative literature review.

Due to growing numbers of primary total hip replacement (THR), the revision THR burden is also increasing. Common indications for revision are osteolysis, infection, instability, and mechanical failure of implants, which can cause acetabular bone loss. Massive acetabular bone defects and pelvic discontinuity are extremely challenging problems. Many techniques have been utilized to address bone loss while maintaining a stable revision THR. Structural allografts, cemented prosthesis, reconstruction cages, and custom triflanged implants have all been used successfully albeit with relatively high complications rates. We have tried to highlight emerging trends to utilize Custom Made Monoflange or Triflange Acetabular Components to reconstruct massive acetabular defects with favourable midterm implant survival, better functional outcomes, relatively lesser complications, and almost similar cost of prosthesis as compared to conventional reconstruction techniques. However, long-term data and study is still recommended to draw a definitive conclusion. In this narrative review article, we searched PubMed and Cochrane for studies on managing acetabular bone loss in revision THR with a focus on recent literature for mid to long-term outcomes and compared results from various studies on different reconstruction methods. Hemispherical cementless acetabular prosthesis with supplemental screws are commonly utilized to manage mild to moderate acetabular bone loss. Recent trends have shown much interest and paradigm shift in patient specific custom triflange acetabular components (CTAC) for reconstructing massive acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. Studies have reported high patient satisfaction, improved patient reported daily functioning, high mid-term implant survival, similar complications, and encouraging all cause re-revision rate. However, more prospective and quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the superiority of CTACs over conventional acetabular implants. There is no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing massive acetabular defects. Thorough preoperative workup and planning is an absolute requirement for successful revision THR. While most of the moderate acetabular bone loss can be managed with cementless hemispherical acetabular shells with excellent long-term outcomes, reconstructing massive acetabular bone defects in revision THR remains a challenge. Depending on the size and location of the defect, various constucts have demonstrated long-term success as discussed in this review, but complications are not negligible. CTACs provide a treatment for massive bone loss that may be otherwise difficult to achieve anatomic stability with other constructs. Although long-term data is sparse, the cost and complication rate is comparable to other reconstruction methods.

Revision Rates and Causes in Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review

Total hip replacement is a common surgery to treat severe hip joint pain and dysfunction. Although total hip replacement is generally safe and effective, complications, including revision, are risks. This study aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze revision rates and causes of total hip replacement. This research uses a systematic literature review method following PRISMA guidelines. The data collection technique in this research uses literature study techniques. Literature searches were conducted in electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The data that has been collected is then analyzed in three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion. The results showed that factors such as infection, dislocation, limb length discrepancy, and other complications play an important role in determining the revision rate and success of replacement. Precautions include using a povidone-iodine mouthwash before treatment to reduce the risk of infection and implementing better blood management protocols to optimize total hip replacement results. This study implies an in-depth understanding of the risk factors associated with revision total hip replacement, which is essential in managing patients undergoing this procedure. By paying closer attention to these factors, medical practitioners can increase the success of total hip replacement and reduce the number of revisions required, thereby improving patients' quality of life.

Severe osteolysis in a patient with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease 32 years after primary total hip replacement: A case report

This article presents a case report of a 73-year-old woman with Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease (LCPD) which developed late-onset osteolysis after a primary total hip replacement (THR). LCPD is a complex childhood hip disorder that can cause bone necrosis, deformation, and premature osteoarthritis with an increased risk of osteolysis after primary THR and therefore a higher risk of revision surgery. The acetabular component was unstable, with pronounced polyethene wear, and mechanical deformation and loosening of the acetabular component. The case was managed with the revision of THR using a non-cemented acetabular and femoral component, polyethene insert and ceramic head, which resulted in a smooth postoperative period. The article also discusses the incidence of LCPD and its association with osteolysis, highlighting the importance of considering medical history to manage complications after primary THR.

Outcomes of Dual Mobility Bearings in Revision Total Hip Replacements.

Background Dual mobility bearings have gained attention in the prevention of instability in revision total hip replacement. This study aimed to evaluate the use of dual mobility bearings in revision total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included the rate of re-operation for any reason, surgical complications, serious medical adverse events, and 90-day mortality rate. Methods A single-centre case series of 55 consecutive operations in 49 patients who underwent revision total hip replacement using dual mobility bearings with a minimum follow-up ofthree months was studied. Results Early dislocation occurred inone case(2%), and there were no intra-prosthetic dislocations at a mean follow-up of 16 months. The rate of re-operation for any reason was6/55(11%) cases, and the post-operative infection rate was2/55(4%) cases. Serious medical adverse events occurred in2/55(4%) cases. The 90-day mortality rate was1/55(2%) cases. Two cases (2%) had cup abduction or anteversion angles outside of the safe zones although there were no dislocations in these patients. Conclusion This case series demonstratesa low dislocation ratein the early post-operative period for dual mobility bearings in revision total hip replacement. Dual mobility bearings show promise as an early low dislocation implant in revision total hip replacement. It remains to be determined whether dual mobility bearings are low-wear implants in the long term.

Exploring needs, barriers to, and facilitators of rehabilitation exercise following revision hip replacement – A grounded theory study

Purpose Evidence on rehabilitation after revision total hip replacement (THR) is inadequate and development of rehabilitation interventions is warranted. Even so, little is known about patients’ experiences with revision THR rehabilitation. This study aimed to explore patients’ rehabilitation exercise experiences after revision THR. Materials and methods Using constructivist grounded theory, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with twelve patients with completed or almost completed rehabilitation exercise after revision THR. Data collection and analysis were a constant comparative process conducted in three phases; initial, focused, and theoretical. Findings From the data, we generated a substantial theory of the participant’s circumstances and ability to integrate rehabilitation exercise into their everyday life after revision THR. Four categories were constructed based on patients’ experiences in different contexts: hesitance, fear avoidance, self-commitment, and fidelity. Conclusions This study highlighted that patients’ expectations, past experiences, attitudes, trusts, and circumstances interact to influence engagement and adherence to rehabilitation exercise and described four categories relating to the integration of revision THR rehabilitation exercise into their everyday life. Clinicians should be aware of and account for these categories during rehabilitation exercise. Tailored individual rehabilitation exercise interventions and clinician approaches to optimize engagement and adherence are needed among patients with revision THR.

Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) following hip and knee arthroplasty: results and findings of a multidisciplinary approach from a non-specialist prosthetic infection centre

Introduction Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication following arthroplasty surgery. Recently a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure has gained popularity for PJI where a thorough debridement, irrigation and modular component exchange is undertaken. Method We present the outcome for DAIR, data collected prospectively, in a busy orthopaedic unit but not one specialising in PJI. All patients with PJI were included without loss of data or patients from 2012 to 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Results Four total knee replacements, 17 total hip replacements, one revision total hip replacement and three hip hemiarthroplasties are included with an average duration from onset of symptoms to the DAIR procedure of 11 days (range 1–22 days). Staphylococcus aureus (24%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (32%) were the most common causative organisms, and the most common antibiotic regimens included intravenous teicoplanin and flucloxacillin. Average follow-up was 67 months (range 9–104 months). Only four patients went on to require revision surgery. An analysis of midterm patient outcome measures for 6 of the total hip replacement (THR) DAIR patients were compared with a database of 792 THRs (with a minimum two-year follow-up) carried out by the same surgeon revealed no significant difference in Oxford hip scores at one-year post-surgery (OHS DAIR 36.2 vs 39 for control group). Conclusion This study includes 25 consecutive patients treated with DAIR with only one reinfection, with a mean follow-up period of 5 years. Using a strict protocol, DAIR appears to offer a successful treatment strategy for the management of early PJI.

Frequent microbiological profile changes are seen in subsequent-revision hip and knee arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection.

A proportion of patients with hip and knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) undergo multiple revisions with the aim of eradicating infection and improving quality of life. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiology cultured from multiply revised hip and knee replacement procedures to guide antimicrobial therapy at the time of surgery. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients were retrospectively identified from databases at two specialist orthopaedic centres in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2019. Patient were included who had undergone repeat-revision total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) for infection, following an initial failed revision for infection. Results: A total of 106 patients were identified. Of these patients, 74 underwent revision TKR and 32 underwent revision THR. The mean age at first revision was 67years (SD 10). The Charlson comorbidity index was 2 for 31 patients, 3-4 for 57 patients, and 5 for 18 patients. All patients underwent at least two revisions, 73 patients received three, 47 patients received four, 31 patients received five, and 21 patients received at least six. After six revisions, 90 % of patients had different organisms cultured compared with the initial revision, and 53 % of organisms were multidrug resistant. The most frequent organisms at each revision were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (36 %) and Staphylococcus aureus (19 %). Fungus was cultured from 3 % of revisions, and 21 % of infections were polymicrobial. Conclusion: Patients undergoing multiple revisions for PJI are highly likely to experience a change in organism, with 90 % of patients having a different organism cultured by their sixth revision. It is therefore important to administer empirical antibiotics at each subsequent revision, taking into account known drug resistance from previous cultures. Our results do not support the routine use of empirical antifungals.

Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The popularity of uncemented stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased in the last decade. To assess the outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems after mid-term follow up. This study was performed following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were chosen irrespective of country of origin or language utilized for the article full texts. This paper included studies that reviewed revision THA for both cemented or uncemented long stems. Three eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis was conducted by using Review Manager version 5.3. We computed the risk ratio as a measure of the treatment effect, taking into account heterogeneity. We used random-effect models. There were no significant differences found for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-5.32; P = 0.76], aseptic loosening (RR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.81-5.70; P = 0.13), dislocation rate (RR = 0.50; 95%CI: 0.10-2.47; P = 0.39), or infection rate (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.82-1.19; P = 0.89), between the uncemented and the cemented long stems for revision THA after mid-term follow-up. This study has evaluated the mid-term outcomes of both cemented and uncemented stems at first-time revision THA. In summary, there were no significant differences in the dislocation rate, aseptic loosening, intraoperative periprosthetic fracture and infection rate between the two cohorts.

Periprosthetic Fractures around Total Hip Replacement-Is There a Rush to Fix?

Periprosthetic fractures now account for 14.1% of all hip revisions. Surgery is often highly specialised and can involve the revision of implants, fixation of fractures, or a combination of both. Delays to surgery are frequent as specialist equipment and surgeons are often required. UK guidelines are currently moving in favour of early surgery in a similar way to the neck of femur fractures, despite a lack of evidential consensus. A retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgery for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip replacement (THR) at a single unit between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Risk factors for complications, length of stay (LOS), and time to surgery data were collected and analysed using regression analysis. A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria: 63 (72%) were treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and 25 (28%) underwent revision THR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both the ORIF and revision groups. Revision surgery was more likely to be delayed than ORIF owing to the need for specialist equipment and personnel (median 143 h vs. 120 h, p = 0.04). Median LOS was 17 days if operated within 72 h and 27 days if delayed beyond this (p < 0.0001), but there was no increase in 90-day mortality (p = 0.66), HDU admission (p = 0.33), or perioperative complications (p = 0.27) with delay beyond 72 h. Periprosthetic fractures are complex and require a highly specialised approach. Delaying surgery does not result in increased mortality or complications but does increase length of stay. Further multicentre research into this area is required.

Trabecular metal augments for reconstruction of acetabular bone defects in revision total hip replacement; early radiological and clinical outcomes

Trabecular metal augments for reconstruction of acetabular bone defects in revision total hip replacement; early radiological and clinical outcomes

Longitudinal Rates, Patient Risk Factors, and Economic Impact of Superficial and Deep Incisional Surgical Site Infection After Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A U.S. Retrospective Commercial Claims Database Analysis.

Background: Longitudinal rates, risk factors, and costs of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) were evaluated six months after primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip replacement (rTHA). Patients and Methods: Patients who had pTHA or rTHA between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2018 were identified using the IBM® MarketScan® administrative claims databases. Kaplan-Meier survival curves evaluated time to SSI over six months. Cox proportional hazard models evaluated SSI risk factors. Generalized linear models estimated SSI costs up to 12 months. Results: The total cohort included 17,514 pTHA patients (mean [standard deviation] age 59.6 [10.1] years, 50.2% female; 66.4% commercial insurance), and 2,954 rTHA patients (61.2 [12.0] years, 52.0% female; 48.6% commercial insurance). Deep and superficial post-operative SSI at six months affected 0.30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22%-0.39%) and 0.67% (95% CI, 0.55%-0.79% of patients in the pTHA, and 8.9% (95%CI: 7.8%-10.0%) and 4.8% (95% CI, 4.0%-5.6%) of patients in the rTHA cohorts. Hazards for SSI were related to patient comorbidities that included diabetes mellitus, obesity, renal failure, pulmonary or circulatory disorders, and depression. The adjusted average all-cause incremental commercial costs associated with post-operative infection ranged from $21,434 to $42,879 for superficial incisional SSI and $53,884 to $76,472 for deep incisional SSI, over a 12-month post-operative assessment period. Conclusions: The SSI rate after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) was nearly 9% compared with 1.0% after pTHA. The risk of infection was influenced by several comorbid risk factors. The incremental cost associated with SSIs was substantial.

Comparison of the Accuracy of 2D and 3D Templating for Revision Total Hip Replacement

Revision hip arthroplasty is a challenging surgical procedure, especially in cases of advanced acetabular bone loss. Accurate preoperative planning can prevent complications such as periprosthetic fractures or aseptic loosening. To date, the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) templating has been evaluated only in primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We retrospectively investigated the accuracy of 3D personalized planning of reinforcement cages (Burch Schneider) in 27 patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty. Personalized 3D modeling and positioning of the reinforcement cages were performed using computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis of each patient and 3D templates of the implant. To evaluate accuracy, the sizes of the reinforcement cages planned in 2D and 3D were compared with the sizes of the finally implanted cages. Factors that may potentially influence planning accuracy such as gender and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed. There was a significant difference (p = 0.003) in the accuracy of correct size prediction between personalized 3D templating and 2D templating. Personalized 3D templating predicted the exact size of the reinforcement cage in 96.3% of the patients, while the exact size was predicted in only 55.6% by 2D templating. Regarding gender and BMI, no statistically significant differences in planning accuracy either for 2D or 3D templating were observed. Personalized 3D planning of revision hip arthroplasty using Burch Schneider reinforcement cages leads to greater accuracy in the prediction of the required size of implants than conventional 2D templating.

TRENDS IN REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY SURGERY: A 21-YEAR REVIEW OF THE NEW ZEALAND JOINT REGISTRY

This study aimed to examine the changing trends in the reasons for total hip replacement (THR) revision surgery, in one country over a twenty-one year period, in order to assess whether changes in arthroplasty practices have impacted revision patterns and whether an awareness of these changes can be used to guide clinical practice and reduce future revision rates.The reason for revision THR performed between January 1999 and December 2019 was extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). The results were then grouped into seven 3-year periods to allow for clearer visualization of trends. The reasons were compared across the seven time periods and trends in prosthesis use, patient age, gender, BMI and ASA grade were also reviewed. We compared the reasons for early revision, within one year, with the overall revision rates.There were 20,740 revision THR registered of which 7665 were revisions of hips with the index procedure registered during the 21 year period. There has been a statistically significant increase in both femoral fracture (4.1 – 14.9%, p&lt;0.001) and pain (8.1 – 14.9%, p&lt;0.001) as a reason for hip revision. While dislocation has significantly decreased from 57.6% to 17.1% (p&lt;0.001). Deep infection decreased over the first 15 years but has subsequently seen further increases over the last 6 years. Conversely both femoral and acetabular loosening increased over the first 12 years but have subsequently decreased over the last 9 years. The rate of early revisions rose from 0.86% to 1.30% of all revision procedures, with a significant rise in revision for deep infection (13-33% of all causes, p&lt;0.001) and femoral fracture (4-18%, p&lt;0.001), whereas revision for dislocation decreased (59-30%, p&lt;0.001). Adjusting for age and gender femoral fracture and deep infection rates remained significant for both (p&lt;0.05). Adjusting for age, gender and ASA was only significant for infection.The most troubling finding was the increased rate of deep infection in revision THR, with no obvious linked pattern, whereas, the reduction in revision for dislocation, aseptic femoral and acetabular loosening can be linked to the changing patterns of the use of larger femoral heads and improved bearing surfaces.

Early revision of primary total hip replacements in Yaounde: incidence, indications, surgical techniques and results

Introduction: Total hip replacements are becoming more common in our environment due to an aging population and an overall improvement in the provision of healthcare. They remain costly and at the expense of the patient, making any failure of the intervention dramatic. Early revision surgery is a devastating complication, exacerbating morbidity, mortality and cost. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of early revision of total hip replacements (THRs) in Yaounde and to describe their etiologies, indications and short-term results. Patients and Methods: All records of patients operated for a primary THR in hospitals in Yaounde during the period from January 2015 to December 2021 were collected, and retrospectively analyzed to recruit those who had been reoperated on the same hip in the year after the first THR surgery. Data on the etiology of the revision surgeries, therapeutic indications, and results at one year of follow up were collected. Results: Out of a total of 117 primary THRs performed during this period, 10 cases of early revision surgeries were performed, representing an early revision rate of 8.5%. The initial indications for primary THR were coxarthrosis (5 cases), osteonecrosis (3 cases) and complex hip fractures (2 cases). The etiologies of early revisions were infection in 6 (60%) cases, irreducible or uncontrollable dislocations in 3 (30%) cases, and periprosthetic fracture in 1 (10%) case. The therapeutic indications were debridement with maintenance of the implant in 2 cases, debridement with implant explantation – sterilization – then reimplantation of the same implant in 2 cases, debridement and exchange of the implant in 2 cases, open reduction with repositioning of the acetabulum in 3 cases, and osteosynthesis by cerclage wiring in 1 case. The immediate results were favorable in 3 (30%) cases, while 4 required a second revision surgery. The functional evaluation at one year follow up which was assessed using the Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (PMA) score was 11.5 [7-15]. Conclusion: The rate of early revision surgery of primary THR remains relatively high in our environment, when compared to developed countries. Infections and hip joint instabilities are the main etiologies. Their management deserves to be improved in order to optimize the results in this setting.

Re-revision hip replacement in peri prosthesis shaft femur fracture in operated case of cemented total hip replacement

Introduction: Revision surgery differs from original total hip replacement surgery, which is a lengthier and more difficult process. To get a satisfactory result, substantial preparation is required, as well as the use of specialised implants and instruments. Periprosthetic fractures are most commonly caused by a fall and frequently necessitate revision surgery. Most modifications will include the use of customised implants intended to compensate for compromised bone and soft tissue. Case Report: 68-year-old male with bilateral cemented total hip replacement presents with peri prosthetic shaft femur fracture in left side without DNVD which was van-couver type B2 managed with ORIF + Platting + TBW loop which eventually failed, impairing the patient's routine activity, so he came to SMIMER hospital. Management: We performed implant removal + revision total hip replacement with long stem femoral component, which failed post-operatively, therefore the patient underwent Re-revision surgery with inter locking nail femoral long stem component. During repeated follow-ups, the patient expressed satisfaction with his everyday activities. Discussion: Complication are common in revision surgery. Early management is key to rectify intra operative and post-operative complication. Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip replacement is a rare but feared complication. Peri prosthetic fracture is managed based on fracture pattern and stem and bone stock. Conclusion: Surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures, thanks to the introduction of new implants for osteosynthesis and development of new stems for revision endoprostheses, helps achieve ever better results. Of major importance for choosing the treatment method is correct classification of fracture and stem stability.

Periprosthetic rice body containing cyst formation in a case of revision total hip replacement in a known RA - Diagnostic Dilemma: A case report

Periprosthetic rice body containing cyst formation in a case of revision total hip replacement in a known RA - Diagnostic Dilemma: A case report