Return to activity following revision total hip arthroplasty
Demand for revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) continues to grow worldwide and is expected to more than double within the next 1–2 decades. The primary aim of this study was to examine return to function following revision THA in a UK population.
Patients and methods
We assessed 118 patients (132 RTHAs, mean age 65 years SD 13, range 23–88) at a mean follow-up of 7.9 years (SD 4.4) postoperatively. Preoperative age, gender, BMI, social deprivation, operative indication, comorbidities, activity level (UCLA score) and Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were recorded. Postoperative UCLA score, OHS, EQ-5D, satisfaction levels and performance in activities of daily living (ADLs) were obtained and univariate and multivariate analysis performed.
Mean UCLA activity score improved following RTHA (p < 0.001): UCLA activity score improved in 37% and was unchanged in 50%; 49% of patients engaged in at least moderate level activities (UCLA score ≥ 6). Patient BMI, gender, age and reason for revision did not influence levels of pain, stiffness or activity at follow-up. Preoperative UCLA activity scores (p < 0.001) independently predicted long-term UCLA scores. Independent predictors (p < 0.05) of poor hip-specific function (OHS) following revision included social deprivation, revision for periprosthetic fracture and lower preoperative OHS. Difficulties with ADLs were associated with increasing deprivation, ≥ 3 comorbidities, and revision for periprosthetic fracture or infection (p < 0.05). Overall, 79% of patients remained satisfied or very satisfied following revision THA. Following RTHA, 10% suffered a dislocation and 13% required reoperation for complications.
Revision THA facilitates long-term return to preoperative levels of physical activity in the majority of patients, though activity levels increase in one-third only. Overall over three-quarters are satisfied with their outcome, but revision for periprosthetic fracture or dislocation gives the worse overall outcomes and lower satisfaction levels.
KeywordsRevision hip arthroplasty Activity levels PROMs Function Satisfaction
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Kurtz S et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785Google Scholar
- 3.Association AO (2017) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry Annual Report. Cited 2017 2nd December, 2017. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2017
- 4.Registry NJ (2017) National joint registry 14th annual report, 2016Google Scholar
- 8.Farrar NG, Aker M, Duckett S (2015) A cost analysis of elective hip revision arthroplasty versus periprosthetic hip fracture management in a district general hospital. 97:26–29Google Scholar
- 12.Gwam CU et al (2017) Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national inpatient sample 2009 to 2013. J ArthroplastyGoogle Scholar
- 15.Eisler T et al. Patient expectation and satisfaction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 17(4): 457–462Google Scholar
- 17.Haddad FS et al. The expectations of patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 16(1):87–91Google Scholar
- 21.EuroQol (1990) A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208Google Scholar
- 27.Saleh KJ et al (2003) Functional outcome after revision hip arthroplasty: a metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:254–264Google Scholar
- 28.Jain R, Schemitsch EH, Waddell JP (2000) Cementless acetabular revision arthroplasty. Can J Surg 43(4):269–275Google Scholar
- 29.Jain R, Schemitsch EH, Waddell JP (2000) Functional outcome after acetabular revision with roof reinforcement rings. Can J Surg 43(4):276–282Google Scholar
- 30.MacWilliam CH et al (1996) Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. Health Serv Res 31(5):623–638Google Scholar
- 31.Davis AM et al (2006) Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(4):685–691Google Scholar
- 35.Thomasson E et al (2001) Perioperative complications in revision hip surgery. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 3(1):38–40Google Scholar
- 41.Davis AM et al (2008) Waiting for hip revision surgery: the impact on patient disability. Can J Surg 51(2):92–96Google Scholar