Similar complication and readmission rates following simultaneous versus staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 32 publications
Revision of Failed Short Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Background: The current literature lacks studies which evaluate the failure of short stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, the present clinical investigation reported our experience with the failure of short stems in THA, evaluating the causes of failure, survivorship, and the clinical outcomes of revision arthroplasty. Methods: The present study was performed according to the STROBE guidelines. This study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of the Humanitas Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy, between 2017 and 2022. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a previously implanted THA using a short stem were prospectively included in the present study. Surgeries were performed with patients in lateral position, using a minimally invasive posterolateral approach. The outcomes of interest were to report information on the type and survivorship of implants used for the revision surgery and evaluate the clinical outcomes and the rate of complications. The following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for the clinical assessment were the Western Ontario McMaster Osteo-Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and related subscales of pain, stiffness, and function, and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Data from 45 patients were retrieved. Of them, 31% (14 of 45 patients) were women. The mean age was 63.7 ± 13.9 years. The mean length of the implant survivorship was 6.2 ± 5.7 years. In total, 58% (26 of 45 patients) underwent revision of all components, 36% (16 of 45 patients) revised only the stem, and 1% (3 of 45 patients) received a two-stage revision. The mean length of the follow-up was 4.4 ± 1.5 years. The cup was revised in 58% (26 of 45) of patients. At 4.4 ± 1.5 years of follow-up, the WOMAC score was 3.5 ± 1.3 and the VAS was 1.2 ± 1.3. In total, 9% (4 of 45) of patients experienced minor complications. One patient used a walking aid because of reduced function. One patient evidenced muscular hypotrophy. Two patients experienced hip dislocations. All two dislocations were managed conservatively with repositioning in the emergency room under fluoroscopy. No patient needed additional revision surgery or experienced further dislocations. Conclusions: Revision surgery is effective and safe when a short stem THA fails. At approximately four years of follow-up, all patients were highly satisfied with their clinical outcomes. Despite the relatively high number (9%), complications were of a minor entity and were successfully managed conservatively.
Revision of Failed Short Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Background: The current literature lacks studies which evaluate the failure of short stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, the present clinical investigation reported our experience with the failure of short stems in THA, evaluating the causes of failure, survivorship, and the clinical outcomes of revision arthroplasty. Methods: The present study was performed according to the STROBE guidelines. This study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of the Humanitas Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy, between 2017 and 2022. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a previously implanted THA using a short stem were prospectively included in the present study. Surgeries were performed with patients in lateral position, using a minimally invasive posterolateral approach. The outcomes of interest were to report information on the type and survivorship of implants used for the revision surgery and evaluate the clinical outcomes and the rate of complications. The following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for the clinical assessment were the Western Ontario McMaster Osteo-Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and related subscales of pain, stiffness, and function, and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Data from 45 patients were retrieved. Of them, 31% (14 of 45 patients) were women. The mean age was 63.7 ± 13.9 years. The mean length of the implant survivorship was 6.2 ± 5.7 years. In total, 58% (26 of 45 patients) underwent revision of all components, 36% (16 of 45 patients) revised only the stem, and 1% (3 of 45 patients) received a two-stage revision. The mean length of the follow-up was 4.4 ± 1.5 years. The cup was revised in 58% (26 of 45) of patients. At 4.4 ± 1.5 years of follow-up, the WOMAC score was 3.5 ± 1.3 and the VAS was 1.2 ± 1.3. In total, 9% (4 of 45) of patients experienced minor complications. One patient used a walking aid because of reduced function. One patient evidenced muscular hypotrophy. Two patients experienced hip dislocations. All two dislocations were managed conservatively with repositioning in the emergency room under fluoroscopy. No patient needed additional revision surgery or experienced further dislocations. Conclusions: Revision surgery is effective and safe when a short stem THA fails. At approximately four years of follow-up, all patients were highly satisfied with their clinical outcomes. Despite the relatively high number (9%), complications were of a minor entity and were successfully managed conservatively.
Contralateral THA More Than 1 Year Apart: Do PROMs and Healthcare Utilization Differ After Each Surgery?
Background Patients who undergo a second THA at least 1 year after the first one may experience different recovery courses after each THA. It is unknown what the clinically relevant improvements and healthcare utilization are after each THA in patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart. Questions/purposes (1) Do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ at baseline and 1 year after THA for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (2) Does the likelihood of achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds differ for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (3) Does utilization of healthcare within 90 days of THA, using discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission risk as proxies, differ between the first and second hip arthroplasty? Methods Between January 2016 and December 2021, a total of 14,023 primary THAs for hip osteoarthritis were performed at a large tertiary academic center, and data from each were longitudinally maintained in an institutional database. In this retrospective study, we excluded nonelective (n = 265), simultaneous bilateral (n = 89), staged bilateral < 1 year apart (n = 1856), unilateral THAs (n = 7541), and those who were lost prior to the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data sets (n =3618), leaving 654 contralateral THAs > 1 year apart (327 patients) for analysis here. The median (range) patient age was 64 years (26 to 88) at the time of the first THA and 66 years (27 to 88) at the second THA. The mean (IQR) time from first THA to second THA was 696 days (488 to 1008). In all, 62% (204 of 327) of patients were women, and 89% (286 of 321) were White. The median (range) BMI was 29 kg/m2 (first THA 16 to 60, second THA 18 to 56) at both THAs. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year after each of the THAs and included Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain (HOOS-pain), physical function (HOOS-PS), and joint replacement (HOOS-JR) scores, as well as the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary score. Each was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better patient perceived outcomes. A distribution-based method was used to calculate the MCID thresholds (HOOS-pain 8.35, HOOS-PS 9.47, and HOOS-JR 7.76), while an anchor-based method was utilized for the PASS thresholds (HOOS-pain 80.6, HOOS-PS 83.6, and HOOS-JR 83.6). Healthcare utilization outcomes included discharge disposition, LOS, and 90-day readmission rates. Results Patients had slightly lower baseline PROM scores in all HOOS subdomains before the first THA compared with the second THA (median HOOS-pain 38 versus 42, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS 54 versus 58, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR 43 versus 47, p < 0.001). The difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative scores was slightly larger in all HOOS subdomains after the first THA (median HOOS-pain difference 52 versus 50, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS difference 38 versus 31, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR difference 42 versus 39, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in HOOS-pain (97% versus 97%; p = 0.93), HOOS-PS (92% versus 88%; p = 0.17), and HOOS-JR (96% versus 94%; p = 0.18) between the first and second THAs. Although there was also no difference in the percentage of patients achieving PASS thresholds in HOOS-pain (81% versus 77%; p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% versus 79%; p = 0.055), and HOOS-JR (71% versus 71%; p = 0.39) between the first and second THAs, considerably fewer patients were reaching the PASS threshold in both THAs. After the second THA, slightly more patients were discharged home (95% versus 91%; p = 0.03) and had a very slightly shorter LOS (1.28 versus 1.35 days; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rates between the first and second THA (4% versus 5%; p = 0.84). Conclusion In patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart, baseline PROMs were slightly worse before the first THA, and improvements were slightly greater compared with the second THA, although these differences were likely not clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvements, based on MCID and PASS thresholds, were similar at 1 year for both THAs, yet 20% to 25% of patients reported inadequate pain relief after both surgeries. Healthcare utilization was also comparable between both procedures. Surgeons can use these findings to counsel patients on the likely similar outcomes following both their THAs. Future studies should explore factors contributing to inadequate pain relief and identify strategies to improve patient outcomes after both THAs. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
