Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Complications and Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

  • 583 Accesses

Abstract

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging. The clinical importance of this procedure has been increasing worldwide over the last years. Complex techniques are usually needed during surgery and require the best knowledge and skills in order to improve the clinical outcomes with the minimal rate of complications. The patients’ increasing age, associated medical comorbidities, and orthopedic problems, such as bone defect and fibrous tissue due to previous surgeries, add more difficulties to management. Despite the encouraging better understanding of this pathology, the overall result is often worse than in primary THA. Indications for revision THA are still changing, and some complications such as dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, or infection continue to be a great problem. This chapter tries to summarize most of the important issues related to the more frequent complications and their results in revision THA. In order to prevent these difficulties, the appropriate clinical evaluation of a painful THA is mandatory before undertaking the procedure: the possibility of infection, soft tissue status, as well as any bone defect in the acetabulum or femur must be considered, not only before surgery but also their situation after removing any previous implants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89:780.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1076–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lavernia CJ, Drakeford MK, Tsao AK, Gittelsohn A, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. Revision and primary hip and knee arthroplasty. A cost analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;311:136–41.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B. Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:175–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91:128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jafari SM, Coyle C, Mortazavi SM, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2046–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wetters NG, Murray TG, Moric M, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Della Valle CJ. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:410–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual report. Gothenburg: Svenska Höftprotesregistret; 2014. http://www.shpr.se/sv/Publications.aspx.

    Google Scholar 

  9. NJR. 15th Annual report. Hemel Hempstead: NJR; 2018. http://www.njrreports.org.uk.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual reports. Adelaide, SA: AOANJRR; 2016. http://aoanjrr.sahmri.com.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Padilla-Eguiluz NG, García-Rey E, Cordero-Ampuero J, Gómez-Barrena E. Regional variability in the rates of total hip replacement in Spain. Hip Int. 2014;24:81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Badarudeen S, Shu AC, Ong KL, Baykal D, Lau E, Malkani AL. Complications after revision total hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1954–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. García-Rey E, García-Cimbrelo E. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:484–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jo S, Jimenez Almonte JH, Sierra RJ. The Cumulative risk of re-dislocation after revision THA performed for instability increases close to 35% at 15 years. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1177–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamadouche M, Biau DJ, Huten D, Musset T, Gaucher F. The use of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3248–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A. The extent of the bone defect affects the outcome of femoral reconstruction in revision surgery with impacted bone grafting: a five- to 17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1457–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Abdel MP, Houdek MT, Watts CD, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femoral fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B:468–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Paprosky WG, Sporer SM. Controlled femoral fracture: easy in. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 Suppl 1):91–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. García-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R. The evolution of the technique of impaction bone grafting in femoral revision surgery has improved clinical outcome. A prospective mid-term study. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsiridis E, Krikler S, Giannoudis PV. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: current aspects of management. Injury. 2007;38:649–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Odén A, Garellick G. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:26–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Randelli F, Pace F, Priano D, Giai Via A, Randelli P. Re-fractures after periprosthetic femoral fracture: a difficult to treat growing evidence. Injury. 2018;49(Suppl 3):S43–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Natsuhara KM, Shelton TJ, Meehan JP, Lum ZC. Mortality during total hip periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:S337. pii: S0883-5403(18)31225-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lenguerrand E, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD, Jones SA, Porter ML, Blom AW. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6:391–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Boddapati V, Fu MC, Tetreault MW, Blevins JL, Richardson SS, Su EP. Short-term complications after revision hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection are increased relative to noninfectious revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:2997–3002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cordero-Ampuero J. Girdlestone procedure: when and why. Hip Int. 2012;22(Suppl 8):S36–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. El-Husseiny M, Haddad FS. The role of highly selective implant retention in the infected hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:2157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R. Clinical outcome following conversion of Girdlestone's resection arthroplasty to total hip replacement: a retrospective matched case-control study. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:1478–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Tapia M, Martin-Hervas C. Multislice computed tomography for evaluating acetabular defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:138–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wasielewski RC, Cooperstein LA, Kruger MP, Rubash HE. Acetabular anatomy and the transacetabular fixation of screws in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:501–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, “La Paz” University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo García-Rey, Ana Cruz-Pardos & Ricardo Fernández-Fernández

Authors
  1. Eduardo García-Rey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Cruz-Pardos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ricardo Fernández-Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, “La Paz” University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

García-Rey, E., Cruz-Pardos, A., Fernández-Fernández, R. (2020). Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Complications and Results. In: Rodríguez-Merchán, E. (eds) Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24773-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24773-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24772-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24773-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation