Comparison of patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty and patients undergoing re-revision

Abstract

– OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the demographic, clinical, and surgical characteristics of patients who underwent revision hip replacement surgery and those who underwent re-revision surgery. The secondary outcome is the investigation of the factors that play a role in estimating the time between primary arthroplasty surgery and revision surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty in our clinic between 2010- 2020, patients with at least 2 years of follow-up, and who underwent re-revision surgery if needed were included. Demographic and clinical data were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 153 patients who met the study criteria, 120 (78.5%) underwent revision (Group 1) and 33 (21.5%) underwent re-revision (Group 2). The mean age of Group 1 was 53.5 (32-85), and of Group 2 was 67 (38-81) (p=0.003). In both groups, patients who underwent hip replacement due to fracture had more revisions and re-revisions (p=0.794). While 53.3 of the patients in Group 1 did not need additional implants, 72.7% of the patients in Group 2 needed additional implants (p=0.010). Fracture-dislocation, fistula, and the need for debridement after the revision were statistically significantly higher in patients who underwent re-revision. Harris hip scores (HHS) were statistically lower in patients who went for re-revision. CONCLUSIONS: The need for reoperation in patients who have undergone revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery is due to the fact that the patient’s age is advanced and the indication for surgery is a fracture. While the rate of fistula, fracture, dislocation, and debridement increases after re-revision surgeries, the HHS values that indicate clinical success also decrease. We believe that studies with larger participation and longer follow-up periods are needed to explain this issue better.