Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: February 2018 - Volume 476 - Issue 2 - p 420–426 doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000030 BASIC AND CLINICAL RESEARCH

Long-term Mortality After Revision THA

Yao, Jie, J, BA1; Maradit Kremers, Hilal, MD MSc1,2; Abdel, Matthew, P., MD1; Larson, Dirk, R., MS2; Ransom, Jeanine, E., BS2; Berry, Daniel, J., MD1; Lewallen, David, G., MD1
Hip

Background Long-term mortality after primary THA is lower than in the general population, but it is unknown whether this is also true after revision THA.

 

Questions/Purposes We examined (1) long-term mortality according to reasons for revision after revision THA, and (2) relative mortality trends by age at surgery, years since surgery, and calendar year of surgery.

 

Methods This retrospective study included 5417 revision THAs performed in 4532 patients at a tertiary center between 1969 and 2011. Revision THAs were grouped by surgical indication in three categories: periprosthetic joint infections (938; 17%); fractures (646; 12%); and loosening, bearing wear, or dislocation (3833; 71%). Patients were followed up until death or December 31, 2016. The observed number of deaths in the revision THA cohort was compared with the expected number of deaths using standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and Poisson regression models. The expected number of deaths was calculated assuming that the study cohort had the same calendar year, age, and sex-specific mortality rates as the United States general population.

 

Results The overall age- and sex-adjusted mortality was slightly higher than the general population mortality (SMR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; p < 0.001). There were significant differences across the three surgical indication subgroups. Compared with the general population mortality, patients who underwent revision THA for infection (SMR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.24-1.48; p < 0.001) and fractures (SMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.37; p < 0.001) had significantly increased risk of death. Patients who underwent revision THA for aseptic loosening, wear, or dislocation had a mortality risk similar to that of the general population (SMR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; p = 0.647). The relative mortality risk was highest in younger patients and declined with increasing age at surgery. Although the relative mortality risk among patients with aseptic indications was lower than that of the general population during the first year of surgery, the risk increased with time and got worse than that of the general population after approximately 8 to 10 years after surgery. Relative mortality risk improved with time after revision THA for aseptic loosening, wear, or dislocation.

 

Conclusions Shifting mortality patterns several years after surgery and the excess mortality after revision THA for periprosthetic joint infections and fractures reinforce the need for long-term followup, not only for implant survival but overall health of patients having THA.

 

Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study


Download article