No abstract

The key aspects of the study: 1) what has changed in the structure of revisions in recent years? 2) what is the spectrum of reasons for revision after primary hip arthroplasty and re-revision? 3) what are the demographic features of patients’ population undergoing the revision? Materials and methods. The authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 2415 hip revision cases during the period of time from 2014 until 2018. Separately the authors assessed revisions after primary surgeries and re-revisions as well as the group of early revisions. Results. In the period from 2014 until 2018 the overall share of revisions was 16,6% from all total hip arthroplasties, at the same time the authors reported the absolute 1.7 times increase in number of revisions as well as increased share of revisions in the total structure of hip arthroplasty from 12,5% to 18,9% without significant variances in the number of primary procedures. The share of early revisions increased from 32.9% in 2013 to 56.7% while the number of early revisions amounted to 37.4% of all primary revisions. Gender composition in primary and revision hip arthroplasty varied insignificantly. Mean age at the moment of hip revision was 59.2% (95% CI from 58.7 to 59.7; Me 60 years) which is slightly less than in primary replacement — 60.2 years (95% CI from 58.9 to 61.1; Me 62 years), but such variances had a high statistical significance, р0.001. The main reasons for primary revisions were aseptic loosening of prosthesis components (50.3%), infection (27.6%), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (9.0%) as well as dislocations (6,2%). Re-revisions structure featured prevalence of infection (69.0%), aseptic loosening (20.8%) and dislocations (7,8%). Mean period of time after primary hip arthroplasty to revision was 7.9 years (95% CI from 7.7 to 8.2; Me 7.3), to first re-revision — 2.9 (95% CI from 2.6 to 3.2; Me 1.2), to second re-revision — 2.2 (95% CI from 1.8 to 2.7; Me 1.1), to third — 2,2 (95% CI from 1.7 to 2.8; Me 1.1), to fourth — 1.0 (95% CI from 0.6 to 1.3; Me 0.6), remaining cases demonstrated rather high heterogeneity. Conclusion. In the result of the present study the authors observed increased number of all revision hip arthroplasties, especially the share of early revisions within first five years from the moment of previous surgery. The most often reason for revision after primary hip arthroplasty was aseptic loosening of one or both components of prosthesis. Infection was the absolute leader in the group of re-revisions constituting over half of all reasons for secondary intervention.

обзоры и рецензии т р а в м а т о л о г и я и о р т о п е д и я р о с с и и 2013-4 (70)

Purposes are to determine1) what frequency and what degree is of custom acetabular implants malposition in comparison with planned position, 2) what the reason of malposition is and 3) what the malposition consequences we can wait for.Patients and methods. The observation group included 20 patients (18 women and 2 men) with severe ac-etabular defects. Mean age of patients made up 53 (22-72) years. Position of the implants was compared with the parameters of preoperative planning using 5 postoperative CT indices (inclination, anteversion of semi-spherical part of the implant, spatial location of the rotation center in three axes). More than 10° deviation for inclination or anteversion and 5° dislocation of the rotation center in any axis was considered as a malposition of the component.Results. Only 5 of 20 constructions matched conditionally permissible limits by all the parameters. Most often excessive dislocation of the rotation center in lateral direction (10 cases) and excessive anteversion (9 cases) were observed. During 6 weeks follow up no complications related to the acetabular component position were recorded.Conclusion. It was shown that at revision arthroplasty with custom-made implants the probability of implant malposition as compared to the preoperative plan. The main reason could be the complexity of intraoperative orientation under conditions of abnormal hip anatomy. Malposition of the implants beyond the stated values did not result in complications within the early postoperative period. The longer follow up is required for the assessment of the long-term results.