Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 3, pp 411–421 | Cite as

Return to activity following revision total hip arthroplasty

  • Gareth S. TurnbullEmail author
  • Chloe E. H. Scott
  • Deborah J. MacDonald
  • Steffen J. Breusch
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.


Revision hip arthroplasty Activity levels PROMs Function Satisfaction 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Bozic KJ et al (2015) comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):2131–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Association AO (2017) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry Annual Report. Cited 2017 2nd December, 2017.
  4. 4.
    Registry NJ (2017) National joint registry 14th annual report, 2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pivec R et al (2015) Incidence and future projections of periprosthetic femoral fracture following primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of international registry data. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 25(4):269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Postler AE et al (2017) Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 27(2):180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanhegan IS et al (2012) A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(5):619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 413:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lyons RF et al (2018) Periprosthetic hip fractures: a review of the economic burden based on length of stay. J Orthopaed 15:118–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Naughton M (2012) Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty have high survivorship at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Singh JA, Lewallen D (2009) Age, gender, obesity, and depression are associated with patient-related pain and function outcome after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 28(12):1419–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi Y-J, Ra HJ (2016) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 28(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisler T et al. Patient expectation and satisfaction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 17(4): 457–462Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrack RL et al (2006) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the patient’s perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haddad FS et al. The expectations of patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 16(1):87–91Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dawson J et al (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M (2009) Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(4):958–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zahiri CA et al (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13(8):890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    EuroQol (1990) A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kievit AJ et al (2014) A reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to score the impact of knee complaints on work following total knee arthroplasty: the WORQ. J Arthroplasty 29(6):1169–1175 (e2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biring GS et al (2007) Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(11):1446–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bourne RB et al (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott CE et al (2010) Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(9):1253–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Von Keudell A et al (2014) Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 21(1):180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saleh KJ et al (2003) Functional outcome after revision hip arthroplasty: a metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:254–264Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jain R, Schemitsch EH, Waddell JP (2000) Cementless acetabular revision arthroplasty. Can J Surg 43(4):269–275Google Scholar
  29. 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. 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. 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
  32. 32.
    Watts CD et al (2016) Morbidly obese vs non-obese aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: surprisingly similar outcomes. J Arthroplasty 31(4):842–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fisher DA et al (2007) Looks good but feels bad: factors that contribute to poor results after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(6 Suppl 2):39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Houdek MT et al (2015) Morbid obesity: a significant risk factor for failure of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(4):326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomasson E et al (2001) Perioperative complications in revision hip surgery. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 3(1):38–40Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clement ND et al (2013) Socioeconomic status affects the Oxford knee score and short-form 12 score following total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95-B(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clement ND et al (2011) Socioeconomic status affects the early outcome of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(4):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neuburger J et al (2013) Socioeconomic differences in patient-reported outcomes after a hip or knee replacement in the English National Health Service. J Public Health 35(1):115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Springer BD et al (2017) Infection burden in total hip and knee arthroplasties: an international registry-based perspective. Arthroplasty Today 3(2):137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh JA, Lewallen DG (2013) Operative diagnosis for revision total hip arthroplasty is associated with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14(1):210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Davis AM et al (2008) Waiting for hip revision surgery: the impact on patient disability. Can J Surg 51(2):92–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gareth S. Turnbull
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chloe E. H. Scott
    • 2
  • Deborah J. MacDonald
    • 2
  • Steffen J. Breusch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsGolden Jubilee National HospitalClydebankUK
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations