A comparison of mortality rates following revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture, infection or aseptic loosening.

BACKGROUND

Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is comparable to neck of femur fractures. Our institution provides a regional "PPF Service". The aim of this study was to determine the time to surgery and mortality rate for PPF, compared to revision for infection or aseptic loosening.

METHODS

Revision arthroplasty procedures performed for PPF, infection or aseptic loosening between January 2014 and December 2015 were identified. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups for baseline demographics, admission to higher-level care, length of stay, complications and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 37 PPF, 71 infected and 221 aseptic revisions. PPF had a higher proportion of females (65% vs. 39% in infection and 53% in aseptic; p = 0.031) and grade 3 and 4 ASA patients (p = 0.006). Median time to surgery for PPF was 8 days (95% CI, 6-16). Single-stage procedures were performed in 84% of PPF, 42% of infections and 99% of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). 19% of PPF revisions required HDU admission, 1% in the aseptic group and none in the infection group. Median length of stay was significantly different (PPF 10; infection 14; aseptic 8 days (p < 0.001). The 1-year mortality rate for PPF was 0%, 2.8% for infection and 0.9% in the aseptic group (p = 0.342).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the PPF group having higher ASA grades and more HDU admissions, our 1-year mortality rate was 0% and not significantly different to infection or aseptic loosening. Our low complication and 1-year mortality rate is encouraging and supports the safety of a regional "Periprosthetic Fracture Service".