Does Time to Aseptic Failure After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Affect Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the effects of time-to-failure from primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to aseptic first-revision on clinical results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is scarce. Therefore, we sought to compare demographics, operative times, lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, 90-day readmissions, re-revision rates, mortalities, and PROMs between early and late aseptic THA revisions.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected institutional database of all elective hip procedures. In total, 572 patients who underwent aseptic revision after primary THA from August 2015 to December 2018 were analyzed. Patients were stratified into either early revision (<3-years; n = 176) or late revision (≥3-years; n = 396) cohorts.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients were revised earlier for bone-related (ie, periprosthetic fractures) (22.7% versus 8.3%) or other various complications (19.9% versus 5.8%), whereas more late revisions were performed to treat implant-related failures (6.8% versus 37.1%), respectively. Operative time was significantly shorter in early versus late revisions (133 versus 157 minutes). A significantly higher delta-change/improvement from baseline/preoperative to 1-year postoperative was found for hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function (HOOS-PS), veterans-RAND-12 physical and mental components (VR-12-PCS and MCS, respectively) of early revisions. However, HOOS-PS and HOOS-Pain at 1-year of follow-up were significantly worse in early revisions.

CONCLUSION

With exception of operative time, time-to-failure had no significant influence on clinical results. Despite greater improvements on PROMs from preoperative to postoperative, patients undergoing early revisions after primary THA perceive significantly higher levels of pain and worse physical functionality at 1-year of follow-up.