Patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and re-revision rates are not associated with the indication for revision total hip arthroplasty a prospective evaluation of 647 consecutive patients

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTha) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (proMs). Methods We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTha at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups. Results The indication for revision influenced PROMs improvement over time. This finding mainly reflected preoperative differences between the groups, but diminished between the first and second postoperative years. Preoperatively, patients revised due to infection and aseptic loosening had a lower mohS than patients with other indications for revision. pain scores at baseline were highest in patients being revised for dislocation. Infection and aseptic loosening groups showed marked changes over time in both mohS and EQ-5D-3L. Overall complications and re-revision rates were 35.4% and 9.7% respectively, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.351 and p = 0.470, respectively). conclusion Good outcomes were generally obtained regardless of the reason for revision, with patients having the poorest preoperative scores exhibiting the greatest improvement in PROMs. Furthermore, overall complication and reoperation rates were in line with previous reports and did not differ between different indications for rTha.