scholarly journals Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Epidemiology, Causes, Risk Factors (foreign literature review)

Author(s):  
A. V. Kaminskiy ◽  
L. O. Marchenkova ◽  
A. V. Pozdnyakov

Publications related to revision hip arthroplasty were analyzed. Data of National Registers from different countries were presented, problems of epidemiology and prognostication of need in revision arthroplasty were highlighted, the causes (demographic, clinical, surgical, rehabilitation) and the most significant risk factors that conditioned the failure of primary hip arthroplasty were described.

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-89
Author(s):  
A. V Kaminskiy ◽  
L. O Marchenkova ◽  
A. V Pozdnyakov

Publications related to revision hip arthroplasty were analyzed. Data of National Registers from different countries were presented, problems of epidemiology and prognostication of need in revision arthroplasty were highlighted, the causes (demographic, clinical, surgical, rehabilitation) and the most significant risk factors that conditioned the failure of primary hip arthroplasty were described.


2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter S. Young ◽  
Rory G. Middleton ◽  
Ian D. Learmonth ◽  
Tahawwar Hasnat A. Minhas

There has been increasing focus on bone conservation through proximal fixation in primary hip arthroplasty. However, the debate regarding fixation in revision arthroplasty and which factors influence implant choice remains less clear-cut. We report a case involving fatigue fracture of a long, distally well-fixed, uncemented revision stem. This was revised to a proximally fixed implant. This case highlights a number of issues when considering the choice of implant in hip revision surgery and raises the issue of bone conservation in revision surgery. We would suggest that in both primary and revision hip arthroplasty meticulous pre-operative consideration of the choice of implant should be undertaken, especially in the younger patient with higher expectations and functional demands.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-47
Author(s):  
A. A. Myasoedov ◽  
S. S. Toropov ◽  
G. V. Berezin ◽  
V. V. Karelkin ◽  
Z. A. Totoev ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 174550651881659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Li ◽  
Shang Ying Hu ◽  
Yunkun He ◽  
Leyla Hernandez Donoso ◽  
Kelly Qiao Qu ◽  
...  

Objectives: Human papillomavirus is the necessary cause of cervical cancer, in particular the human papillomavirus-16/18 strains, which have been detected in ~70% of all cervical cancer cases worldwide. This study aims to assess whether other cofactors, which might be specific for the Chinese population, are involved in the development of cervical cancer. These findings may support the future direction of cervical cancer prevention. Study Design: Systematic literature review. Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, MEDLINE-IN-PROCESS, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and Chongqing VIP Information. The target population were adolescents or adults from mainland China. All observational studies irrespective of intervention or comparator reporting risk factors for cervical cancer were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The impact of each outcome was reported in numerical terms. Results: A total of 2,676 articles were screened. A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies were case-controlled designs mostly conducted in hospitals of South-Eastern China. A total of 18 studies reported lifestyle behaviours as significant influencing factors in the development of cervical cancer. Sexual behaviour, gestational factors, screening history, disease history and socio-demographics status were reported as significant risk factors for cervical cancer development. Conclusion: This review provides an up-to-date insight of current cervical cancer risk factors in China. Due to the heterogeneity of the results, further evaluation is recommended to determine the association of these risk factors to the overall risk of cervical cancer.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 877-881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared R.H. Foran ◽  
Nicholas M. Brown ◽  
Craig J. Della Valle ◽  
Brett R. Levine ◽  
Scott M. Sporer ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szu-Yuan Chen ◽  
Chi-Chien Hu ◽  
Chun-Chieh Chen ◽  
Yu-Han Chang ◽  
Pang-Hsin Hsieh

Background. Two-stage revision hip arthroplasty is the gold standard for treatment of patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but few studies have reported outcomes beyond short-term follow-up.Methods. A total of 155 patients who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic PJI in 157 hips were retrospectively enrolled in this study between January 2001 and December 2010. The mean patient age was 57.5 years, the mean prosthetic age was 3.6 years, and the interim interval was 17.8 weeks. These patients were followed up for an average of 9.7 years.Results. At the latest follow-up, 91.7% of the patients were free of infection. The mean Harris hip score improved significantly from 28.3 points before operation to 85.7 points at the latest follow-up. Radiographically, there was aseptic loosening of the stem or acetabular components in 4 patients. In the multivariate survival analysis using a Cox regression model, repeated debridement before final reconstruction, an inadequate interim period, bacteriuria or pyuria, and cirrhosis were found to be the independent risk factors for treatment failure.Conclusion. Our data show that two-stage revision hip arthroplasty provides reliable eradication of infection and durable reconstruction of the joint in patients with PJI caused by a variety of pathogens.


2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (11) ◽  
pp. 1678-1685
Author(s):  
Hussein Abdelaziz ◽  
Michael Schröder ◽  
Calvin Shum Tien ◽  
Kahled Ibrahim ◽  
Thorsten Gehrke ◽  
...  

Aims One-stage revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has several advantages; however, resection of the proximal femur might be necessary to achieve higher success rates. We investigated the risk factors for resection and re-revisions, and assessed complications and subsequent re-revisions. Methods In this single-centre, case-control study, 57 patients who underwent one-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI of the hip and required resection of the proximal femur between 2009 and 2018 were identified. The control group consisted of 57 patients undergoing one-stage revision without bony resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify any correlation with resection and the risk factors for re-revisions. Rates of all-causes re-revision, reinfection, and instability were compared between groups. Results Patients who required resection of the proximal femur were found to have a higher all-cause re-revision rate (29.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.018), largely due to reinfection (15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.003), and dislocation (8.8% vs 10.5%; p = 0.762), and showed higher rate of in-hospital wound haematoma requiring aspiration or evacuation (p = 0.013), and wound revision (p = 0.008). The use of of dual mobility components/constrained liner in the resection group was higher than that of controls (94.7% vs 36.8%; p < 0.001). The presence and removal of additional metal hardware (odds ratio (OR) = 7.2), a sinus tract (OR 4), ten years’ time interval between primary implantation and index infection (OR 3.3), and previous hip revision (OR 1.4) increased the risk of proximal femoral resection. A sinus tract (OR 9.2) and postoperative dislocation (OR 281.4) were associated with increased risk of subsequent re-revisions. Conclusion Proximal femoral resection during one-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI may be required to reduce the risk of of recurrent or further infection. Patients with additional metalware needing removal or transcortical sinus tracts and chronic osteomyelitis are particularly at higher risk of needing proximal femoral excision. However, radical resection is associated with higher surgical complications and increased re-revision rates. The use of constrained acetabular liners and dual mobility components maintained an acceptable dislocation rate. These results, including identified risk factors, may aid in preoperative planning, patient consultation and consent, and intraoperative decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1678–1685.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A.J. Goff ◽  
Peter Bobak

Introduction Femoral impaction bone allografting in revision hip arthroplasty facilitates physiological reconstruction with restoration of bone stock, allowing implantation of a standard cemented femoral component. The purpose of this study was to report our experience in femoral component revision arthroplasty with impaction morsellised cancellous bone allograft using custom impactors and a cemented triple-taper polished stem. Methods Retrospective analysis of all cases of femoral component revision hip arthroplasty with impaction bone grafting undertaken by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2011. Outcome measures included radiographic analysis of stem subsidence over time, graft remodelling and incorporation, and clinical progress. Results We reviewed 47 consecutive hips in 44 patients, mean age 62 years (37-88). Femoral impaction with allograft was performed as either single stage (41 cases) or 2-stage (6 cases) procedures. All patients received a cemented C-stem prosthesis. The mean follow-up period was 5.1 (1.3-9.4) years. The median pre-operative bone defect score was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-3) using the Endo-Klinik classification. Radiological evidence of graft incorporation was observed in 89% (281 of 315 zones) with additional remodelling observed in 33% (103 of 315 zones). The median stem subsidence at 1-year follow-up was 1.1 mm (standard deviation [SD] 1.24 mm, range 0-6 mm). The median Oxford Hip Score at the most recent follow-up was 36.5. To date no femoral component has undergone further revision. Conclusions Encouraging results have been obtained with this technique for the treatment of significant bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty, allowing implantation of a standard prosthesis.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e0164839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Lenguerrand ◽  
Michael R. Whitehouse ◽  
Vikki Wylde ◽  
Rachael Gooberman-Hill ◽  
Ashley W. Blom

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document