What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR

Background More than 15,000 primary hip resurfacing arthroplasties have been recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) with 884 primary procedures requiring revision for reasons other than infection, a cumulative percent revision rate at 12 years of 11%. However, few studies have reported the survivorship of these revision procedures.

Questions/purposes (1) What is the cumulative percent rerevision rate for revision procedures for failed hip resurfacings? (2) Is there a difference in rerevision rate among different types of revision or bearing surfaces?

Methods The AOANJRR collects data on all primary and revision hip joint arthroplasties performed in Australia and after verification against health department data, checking of unmatched procedures, and subsequent retrieval of unreported procedures is able to obtain an almost complete data set relating to hip arthroplasty in Australia. Revision procedures are linked to the known primary hip arthroplasty. There were 15,360 primary resurfacing hip arthroplasties recorded of which 884 had undergone revision and this was the cohort available to study. The types of revisions were acetabular only, femoral only, or revision of both acetabular and femoral components. With the exception of the acetabular-only revisions, all revisions converted hip resurfacing arthroplasties to conventional (stemmed) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). All initial revisions for infection were excluded. The survivorship of the different types of revisions and that of the different bearing surfaces used were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox proportional hazard models. Cumulative percent revision was calculated by determining the complement of the Kaplan-Meier survivorship function at that time multiplied by 100.

Results Of the 884 revisions recorded, 102 underwent further revision, a cumulative percent rerevision at 10 years of 26% (95% confidence interval, 19.6-33.5). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision between acetabular revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06 [0.47-2], p = 0.888), femoral revision and combined femoral and acetabular revision (HR, 1.00 [0.65-2], p = 0.987), and acetabular revision and femoral revision (HR, 1.06 [0.47-2], p = 0.893). There was no difference in the rate of rerevision when comparing different bearing surfaces (metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-ceramic HR, 0.46 [0.16-1.29], p = 0.141; metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.51 [0.15-1.76], p = 0.285; metal-on-metal versus metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.62 [0.20-1.89], p = 0.399; and metal-on-metal versus oxinium-on-crosslinked polyethylene HR, 0.53 [0.14-2.05], p = 0.356).

Conclusions Revision of a primary hip resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with a high risk of rerevision. This study may help surgeons guide their patients about the outcomes in the longer term after the first revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.