The current study systematically reviews the literature describing patient outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasties using conventional global hip score ratings. Two thousand one hundred thirty-seven English-language articles published from 1966 through 2000 were identified through a computerized literature search and bibliography review. A three-step filter process was used to identify articles to be included in the metaanalysis. Forty-two articles with 2578 patients had data abstracted for the analysis. Metaanalysis of global hip scores was done using a fixed effects model with the assumption that the variances of each measurement were identical across studies. Thirty-nine articles reporting on 46 cohorts progressed through three filters and went to data extraction and analysis. Revision total hip arthroplasty is a reasonably safe and effective procedure for failed hip replacement Based on this exploratory analysis revision hip procedures seem to have comparable longevity, to primary hip replacement but appear to have slightly lower functional outcome (as measured by global hip scores), and slightly higher morbidity and mortality rates than primary procedures. Inconsistent reporting in the original studies limited exploration of other factors that may have affected outcomes.

High return rates for HCSU calendars and health-related surveys are attainable but required a flexible and personnel-intensive approach to collection methods. Family preference for data collection approach should be obtained at enrollment, should be modified as needed, and requires flexible options, training, intensive staff/family interaction, and patience.