Article Text

PDF
SAT0701 Towards diagnosis-specific lifetime risks for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery
  1. M Gademan1,
  2. LN van Steenbergen2,
  3. SC Cannegieter3,
  4. RG Nelissen4,
  5. PJ Marang-van de Mheen5
  1. 1Orthopaedics/ Clinical Epidemiology, LUMC, Leiden
  2. 2Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's Hertogenbosch
  3. 3Clinical Epidemiology
  4. 4Orthopaedics
  5. 5Medical Decision Making, LUMC, Leiden, Netherlands

Abstract

Background An important aspect regarding optimal timing of primary hip arthroplasty (THA) is to weigh the benefit associated with the primary surgery at a certain point in time against the risk for revision surgery. Revision surgery should be avoided, as outcomes after revision surgery are less favourable than outcomes after primary surgery. Information on lifetime revision risks is needed to guide decision making for individual patients regarding timing of primary surgery.

Objectives Our aim was to provide the 7 year cumulative percentages for revision surgery stratified for diagnosis, sex, type of fixation and age at which primary THA was performed.

Methods Data on arthroplasties was available from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), a nationwide population-based registry with information on all joint arthroplasties in the Netherlands from 2007 onwards. For the current study, all patients who received a primary THA in the period 2007 to 2015 were included except patients with a metal on metal prosthesis, patients with a hybrid or reversed hybrid fixation type or patients with revision surgery without primary surgery registered. Revision surgery was defined as any change of one or more components of the prosthesis. For the current study age at primary surgery, diagnosis, sex, type of fixation (uncemented, cemented) and survival (alive/dead) and revision of prosthesis (yes/no) were extracted from the LROI database. Diagnosis was dichotomized into osteoarthritis (OA) and other diagnoses. Annual revision risks were calculated for each subsequent year after primary arthroplasty by dividing the number of revisions by the total number of patients at risk during that year. The risks were stratified according to the underlying diagnosis, sex, age at primary arthroplasty and fixation type. In addition cumulative annual revision percentages were calculated for the full follow-up period. Furthermore we estimated the percentage of avoided OA revisions by assuming that all OA patients received their primary THA 5 years later (in all age groups <85 yrs) and that the revision risks remained the same in all age categories.

Results In total 134463 primary THA patients were included of whom 68% were female, 89% had OA as underlying indication and 66% of the THAs were uncemented. The 7th year cumulative risk percentage varied between 2.0 and 11.7% (Table 1). Overall cumulative revision percentages were higher in younger age categories (Table 1), with the exception of a 11.7% revision in the group aged 85–90 yrs (uncemented, male, other diagnosis), but this finding is likely due to chance as this group existed of 67 patients. We estimated that by delaying THA for 5 years, a total of 197 revision surgeries (4.4% of all revision surgeries) could be avoided, 48 (14.0%) in the OA male cemented group, 11 (0.9%) in the OA male uncemented group, 69 (3.3%) in the OA female cemented group and 69 (8.6%) in the female uncemented group. This could result in a yearly cost reduction of approximately 4 million euros.

Conclusions Cumulative 7th year risk percentages decreased by age in all different categories. By delaying the primary THA surgery, revisions might be avoided thereby resulting in cost reduction.

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.