PRIMARY EVALUATION THE RESULTS OF REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY AT THONG NHAT HOSPITAL
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: Primary evaluation the results of revision total hip arthroplasty at Thong Nhat tospital. Methods: A descriptively prospective study of 30 patients with revision total hip replacement at Thong Nhat Hospital, from 6/2015 to 6/2019. Postoperative, patients were monitored for clinical symptoms and radiographs for 3 years to evaluate complications, Harris functional score and satisfaction level. Results: the mean age is 53 (from 36 to 65 years). Men dominate 63,3%. Average BMI is 23.5. The mean time between two hip replacements is 15 years. The main cause of revision hip replacement was infection, accounting for 43.3%. Cementless prosthetic account for 86.7%, 73.3% stem coated HA, 76.7% are ceramic types (of which 40% are ceramic on ceramic), 43.3% neck components are size of more than 32mm. The position of the acetabular components when primary total hip replacement fluctuated mainly around the anteversion of 18° and inclination of 41°. Complications after revision hip accounted for 40%, mainly fracture periprosthetic, accounting for 16.7%. The average time of hospital stay is 10 days. The majority of patients had improvement in pain score, only 2 patients had moderate to severe pain. Harris scores from good to excellent are 71%, averaging 17%, and bad 12%. Conclusion: hip instability and mechanical loosening are the most common indications for revision hip replacement. The revision hip replacement surgery is set out when the old hip joint is no longer functional and helps the patient improve the quality of hip mobility and life.
Article Details
Keywords
revision, total hip arthroplasty
References
2. Risk Factors for Early Revision after Total Hip Arthroplasty. Christopher J. Dy, Kevin J. Bozic, Ting Jung Pan, Timothy M. Wright, Douglas E. Padgett, Stephen Lyman. New York: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2014 Jun, Vol. 66(6), pp. 907–915. 24285406.
3. Total hip arthroplasty: Survival and modes of failure. Theofilos Karachalios, George Komnos, and Antonios Koutalos. Greece: EFORT Open Rev, 2018 May, Vol. 3(5), pp. 232–239. 29951261.
4. The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register. M. F. L. Kuijpers, G. Hannink, S. B. W. Vehmeijer, L. N. van Steenbergen, B. W. Schreurs. 20: 385, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2019 Aug. 31438921.
5. Why Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Fails. Bryan D. Springer, Thomas K. Fehring, William L. Griffin, Susan M. Odum, John L. Masonis. Charlotte, NC USA: Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2009 Jan, Vol. 467(1), pp. 166–173. 18975043.
6. Body mass index is associated with risk of reoperation and revision after primary total hip arthroplasty: a study of the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register including 83,146 patients. Arkan S Sayed-Noor, Sebastian Mukka, Maziar Mohaddes, Johan Kärrholm, Ola Rolfson. Sweden: Acta Orthop, 2019 Jun, Vol. 90(3), pp. 220–225. 30931664.
7. Population-Based Rates of Revision of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Kelly L. Corbett, Elena Losina, Akosua A. Nti, Julian J. Z. Prokopetz, Jeffrey N. Katz. Massachusetts, USA: PLoS One, 2010 Oct, Vol. 5(10), p. e13520. 20976011.
8. What Is the Risk of Revision Surgery in Hydroxyapatite-coated Femoral Hip Stems?
Findings From a Large National Registry. Maria C Inacio, Michelle Lorimer, David C Davidson, Richard N De Steiger, Peter L Lewis, Stephen E Graves. s.l: Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2018 Dec, Vol. 476(12), pp. 2353-2366. 30303878.
9. The Effect of Size for a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Implant on Component Revision in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 41,265 Stems. Wayne T Hoskins, Roger J Bingham, Michelle Lorimer, Richard N de Steiger. s.l: J Arthroplasty, 2020 Apr, Vol. 35(4), pp. 1074-1078. 31787355.