The success of conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) among primary THA
and revision THA remains unclear. We hypothesized that most conversion THA’s can be
performed using primary implants and will have an uncomplicated post-operative
course.
Materials and methods
Thirty-six patients (23 females, mean age 68,0y) who underwent
conversion THA for failed interventions for proximal femur fractures in the period
2008–2018 were matched sequentially against patients of the same sex and age who
underwent primary THA or revision THA. Data were collected on implants used, major
complications, and mortality. PROMs used included the Western Ontario and McMaster
Osteoarthritis Index, Harris Hip Score, Visual Analogue Scale and the EQ-5D Health
Questionnaire.
Results
Seventy-two percent of patients who underwent conversion THA were
treated with primary implants and never suffered from a major complication. PROMs
were excellent for this group of patients. The distinction
primary/conversion/revision THA could not explain differences in outcomes; however,
the necessity of using revision implants and the development of major complications
could.
Conclusions
The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a
primary replacement. Predicting outcomes for THA should focus on patient frailty and
technical difficulties dealing with infection, stability and loss of bone stock and
should discard the conversion versus revision terminology.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction
notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00572-0"
Background
A primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) is most commonly performed for
osteoarthritis (OA), usually has an uneventful post-operative course and is known for
its excellent long-term results [1].
Nevertheless, failures do occur, for a variety of reasons, and are most
often followed by a revision (r) THA. This is a technically more demanding procedure,
revision implants are often necessary, and can range from changing a worn-out
polyethylene liner in a not yet unstable hip to a two-stage revision for a difficult to
treat infection with substantial bone loss. Results of rTHA’s are less favourable than
those seen in pTHA’s due to the fact that complications are more common, survival of
implants is shorter, and patients report lower on outcome measures (PROMs) [2‐4].
Anzeige
A third group of hip replacements is made up by the conversion (c) THA’s.
These are usually performed when an intervention for a proximal femur fracture has
failed (Fig. 1) and is salvaged by THA
[5‐9]. Again, this a very
diverse group as it can include patients undergoing placement of an additional cup in a
hemi-arthroplasty (HA) that is causing painful erosion of the native acetabulum or
patients with infected cephalomedullary nails with non-union, significant bone loss and
an escaped abductor apparatus. Besides these technical difficulties, there frequently
are concomitant medial issues as the typical patient requiring cTHA is of old age, has
multiple health issues, and usually has been barely mobile in the period awaiting
salvage surgery.
×
Attempts have been made to determine the success of cTHA among pTHA and
rTHA, as this has implications for patient consenting and institutional reimbursement
[10‐17]. It has been
suggested that a cTHA should be considered an rTHA, but also that it is a distinct
entity with outcomes in between pTHA and rTHA [13, 14, 16]. Interpreting these studies is difficult, as
matched cohort analyses are rare, follow-up differs between groups, but most importantly
because of the fact that very diverse groups of cTHA’s are compared to very diverse
groups of rTHA’s [10‐17]. This raises the question whether it is useful to
predict outcomes based on this distinction in the first place [15, 16].
There is a subgroup of patients who undergo cTHA using primary implants, who will never
develop any complications and whose satisfaction probably resemblances those of patient
with pTHA’s [17].
We, therefore, performed a matched cohort study and formulated the
following three hypotheses:
1.
The distinction pTHA/cTHA/rTHA will not be able to explain
differences in outcomes.
2.
Necessity of revision implants and development of major
complications will be able to explain differences in outcomes.
3.
Most cTHA’s can be performed using primary implants and will
have an uncomplicated post-operative course.
Materials and methods
Design
The theatre diaries of our dedicated hip unit were meticulously
searched for patients who underwent cTHA for failed interventions for proximal femur
fractures during the period from January 2008 to December 2018. They were matched
sequentially against patients of the same sex and age who underwent pTHA or rTHA in
the same year.
Anzeige
Patients
Thirty-six patients (23 females, mean age 68,0 y (SD 14,0; 34–86), 24
left hips) who had undergone cTHA were identified (Table 1). There were 11 failed dynamic hip screws (DHS), 10 HA, 4
cephalomedullary nails, 9 cannulated screws, and 2 proximal femoral plates. All pTHAs
were performed for OA. Indications for rTHA included a mix of infection, loosening,
instability, polyethylene wear, leg length discrepancy and (peri)-prosthetic
fracture. The primary conversion surgery cTHA is in the interval of 3 to 6 months.
But the revision surgery rTHA was still after 2 years.
Table 1
Demographic data, mortality and PROMs of the three cohorts of
hip replacements
pTHA
cTHA
rTHA
F
p
N
36
36
36
Sex (F, %)
23 (63.9%)
23 (63.9%)
24 (66.7%)
Age fracture (mean)
NA
63,6 y (SD 14.8; 27–85)
NA
Age p/cTHA (mean)
69.1 y (SD 12.4; 39–86)
68,0 y (SD 14.0; 34–86)
59,7 y (SD 14.6; 29–82)
4,177
0.8
Age rTHA (mean)
NA
NA
69,0 y (SD 12.8; 39–85)
Side (L, %)
14 (38.9%)
24 (66,7%)
12 (33.3%)
ASA (median)
2 (1–3)
2 (1–3)
2 (1–3)
F/U (mean)
6.4 y (SD 4.3; 1,2–13,2)
6.4 y (SD 4.3; 1,2–13,2)
6,4 y (SD 4.3; 1,2–13,2)
0,000
1.00
VAS overall health (mean)
67.8 (SD 24.7; 20–100)
61.0 (SD 25.5; 20–100)
65,1 (SD 18.7; 30–99)
0,428
0.65
Major complications
4
4
1 year mortality (%)
3 (8.3%)
1 (2.8%)
0 (0%)
1,828
0.17
Mortality at final F/U (%)
9 (25.0%)
7 (19.4%)
6 (16.7%)
0,391
0.68
WOMAC
Pain (mean)
79.7 (SD 28.9; 20,0–100)
66.1 (SD 29.8; 0–100)
72,2 (SD 33.2; 0–100)
1,036
0.36
Stiffness (mean)
82.2 (SD 28.4; 12,5–100)
64.7 (SD 34.9; 0–100)
63,2 (SD 33.9; 0–100)
2,030
0.14
Difficulties (mean)
69.7 (SD 30.8; 7,4–100)
59.4 (SD 35.5; 0–100)
58,1 (SD 28.7; 0–97,1)
0,746
0.48
Total (mean)
72.7 (SD 29.0; 12,5–100)
61.8 (SD 32.5; 6,3–100)
61,6 (SD 29.1; 0–97,9)
0,850
0.43
EQ-5D
Mobility (mean)
1.4 (SD 0.5; 1–2)
1.7 (SD 0.7; 1–3)
1,8 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
2,335
0.11
Self-care (mean)
1.5 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
1.5 (SD 0.7; 1–3)
1,8 (SD 0.5; 1–3)
1,513
0.23
Usual activities (mean)
1.7 (SD 0.7; 1–3)
1.7 (SD 0.8; 1–3)
1,9 (SD 0.5;s 1–3)
0,991
0.34
Pain (mean)
1.5 (SD 0.7; 1–3)
1.4 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
1,8 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
1,496
0.23
Anxiety (mean)
1.3 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
1.5 (SD 0.7; 1–3)
1,4 (SD 0.6; 1–3)
0,694
0.50
HHS
Pain
75.8 (SD 32.3; 0–100)
67.6 (SD 31.7; 0–100)
68,2 (SD 33.4; 0–100)
0,396
0.68
Limp
75.1 (SD 30.9; 0–100)
56.5 (SD 41.4; 0–100)
52,5 (SD 38.4; 0–100)
1,976
0.15
Support
61.2 (SD 37.7; 0–100)
41.9 (SD 38.2; 0–100)
43,4 (SD 37.8; 0–100)
1,705
0.19
Walking distance
56.0 (SD 32.1; 0–100)
45.5 (SD 34.6; 0–100)
39,9 (SD 29.6; 0–100)
1,190
0.31
Stairs
55.3 (SD 34.9; 0–100)
45.7 (SD 32.6; 0–100)
37,5 (SD 30.0; 0–100)
1,378
0.26
Socks and shoes
63.2 (SD 40.3; 0–100)
67.4 (SD 41.6; 0–100)
63,9 (SD 37.6; 0–100)
0,068
0.93
Sitting
90.5 (SD 25.3; 0–100)
90.4 (SD 24.6; 0–100)
90,0 (SD 25.9; 0–100)
0,002
1.00
Public transport
68.4 (SD 68.4; 0–100)
60.9 (SD 49.9; 0–100)
33,3 (SD 48.5; 0–100)
2,657
0.08
Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index; EQ-5D = EuroQol
5-Dimensional Health Questionnaire. p/cTHA patient's age between primary and
revision surgery
F female, L left, THA
total hip arthroplasty, ASA
American Society of Anesthesiologists score, F/U follow-up, VAS
Visual Analogue Scale, WOMAC
Western
Outcome measures
Medical records and all available radiographs were reviewed and data
were collected on implants used, major complications (DVT/PE, death during admission,
dislocation, prosthetic joint infection, periprosthetic fracture, and loosening),
mortality after 1 year and at final follow-up. Patients were contacted for an
interview over the phone (experienced complications, Western Ontario and McMaster
Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and
the EQ-5D Health Questionnaire). If after four attempts patients could not be
reached, data were considered missing. Standardized sumscores for the WOMAC and
domain index scores for the EQ-5D were calculated as per the respective instruction
manuals. Total scores for the HHS could not be calculated as information on deformity
and mobility was missing for the majority of patients. Therefore, percentages of
domain scores were calculated, e.g. if a patient stated he had “marked pain, serious
limitation of activities”, he scored 10/44 for the pain domain.
Statistical analysis
Statistical evaluation was performed using IBM Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences version 25. One-way ANOVA testing was used to compare means
between the three cohorts for ratio and interval variables. If p ≤ 0.05 was encountered, subsequent independent sample
t tests were used to see between which groups
the statistically significant difference existed. Next, two new cohorts were created,
i.e. patients who underwent surgery using primary implants and had an uncomplicated
follow-up vs. patients who required revision implants and/or had an complicated
follow-up, regardless of this being a pTHA, cTHA, or rTHA. PROMs were compared
between these two groups using independent sample t tests.
RESULTS
Hypothesis 1: The distinction pTHA/cTHA/rTHA will not be able to explain
differences in outcomes
Table 1 shows the baseline
characteristics, mortality and PROMS of the three groups of patients. Cohorts were
comparable for age, sex, year of operation, objective (ASA) and subjective (VAS)
overall health scores, and duration of follow-up (Table 1). No statistically significant differences in mortality after
1 year (p = 0.17) or at final follow-up (p = 0.68) were found. Major complications were rare
(Fig. 3d: 14 in total during 691 patients
years of follow-up) and did not differ significantly between groups. PROMs were
obtained for 19 of the pTHA patients (9 deceased, 8 missing), 23 of the cTHA patients
(7 deceased, 6 missing), and 18 of the rTHA patients (6 deceased, 12 missing).
Standardized WOMAC sumscores, EQ-5D domain index scores, and HHS percentage scores
did not show statistically significant differences between the three cohorts (Table
1),
Hypothesis 2: Necessity of revision implants and development of major
complications will be able to explain differences in outcomes
Next patients were divided into 2 groups (Fig. 3e): patients who did not require revision implants and
experienced no major complications during follow-up (“No”, n = 68) and patients who required revision implants and/or experienced
major complications during follow-up (“Yes”, n = 40). Figure 2 illustrates the
significant differences in all WOMAC sumscores, EQ-5D domain index scores, HHS
percentage scores (except “sitting”) and VAS general health scores. Therefore, more
difficult operations (i.e. the use of revision implants) and setbacks during
follow-up (major complications) will influence PROMs.
×
Hypothesis 3: Most cTHAs can be performed using primary implants and have an
uncomplicated post-operative course
Figure 3 shows the amount of
revision stems, revision cups and revision liners (constrained or dual mobility) used
for the three groups of patients. For all pTHAs, primary implants had been used.
Significant more revision stems (7 vs 19; p < 0.01) and revision cups (2 vs 7; p < 0.01) were deemed necessary for rTHA cases compared to cTHA
cases. More revision liners were used in the rTHA group than in the cTHA group, but
this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.21). As can be seen in Fig. 3e, 26/36 (72%) patients who underwent cTHA were treated with
primary implants and never suffered from a major complication. As already illustrated
in Fig. 2, PROMs are high in this group of
patients.
×
Discussion
This study matched and compared a cohort of patients who underwent cTHA to
patients who underwent pTHA and rTHA. Several conclusions can be made.
First, the distinction pTHA/cTHA/rTHA is not able to explain differences
in outcomes. No significant differences in major complications, mortality or PROMs were
found. We, therefore, propose to stop using this distinction when trying to predict
complications, implant survival and costs. The type of primary implant, whether this is
a nail, a plate, a HA or a THA, is not correlated to the outcome of redo surgery as this
will yield very diverse groups and does not take into account more important predicting
factors. In the present study, we found that the use of revision implants and the
development of major complications could explain almost all differences seen in PROMs.
The development and validation of a prediction model based on these and other
parameters, e.g. patient frailty, the presence of pre-existent infection/instability,
and significant bone loss, would be highly useful in daily clinical practice and for
calculation of long-term costs for the society.
Anzeige
Second, we were able to perform most cTHAs using primary implants and most
of them encountered no major complications during follow-up. We know that for this group
of patients, costs are low and patient satisfaction is high, comparable to pTHA
performed for OA. Other studies have reported similar mid-term results. Archibeck et al.
reviewed 102 THA patients after failed internal fixation of a prior hip fractures
[7]. Despite needing slightly more
revision type femoral implants (32 vs 23% in the present study), they still had
excellent outcomes with a mean HHS of 81.8 at last follow-up. Gjertsen JE et al. found
that survival of the implants in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry 5 years after cTHA
for failed internal fixation of femoral neck fractures was 96% [18]. Most recently, Morsi et al. reported on the
clinical and radiological outcomes of converting aseptic failures of intertrochanteric
fracture fixation using a dynamic hip screw (DHS) to a total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a
single stage procedure. Standard straight, polished, collarless, cemented stems were
used in all 107 cases. At an average follow-up of 7.4 years, they report 99% implant
survivorship, a Harris Hip Score of 89.3 (range 71–95) and only a very small number of
surgical complications [19].
We do realize that all our cTHA were performed within a high-volume
arthroplasty unit with specialist hip surgeons and fellows. Contrary to proximal femur
fractures that are ideally treated within 24 h and, therefore, often by the on-call
team, it is our opinion that cTHAs should be performed by a dedicated hip surgeon, even
if this means postponing the procedure.
This study has several limitations. Due to its retrospective nature
confounding factors such as patient expectations were not investigated. McLawhorn et al.
and Qun et al. found that patients who underwent cTHA required more transfusions, had
longer operative times and length of hospital stays, and more often had non-home bound
discharge [13, 15]. Due to the absence of these data, no cost
analysis could be made. Although a period of 13 years was searched, still a relatively
small cohort of cTHA patients was found, yet larger than reported in most studies
[10‐17]. Major
complications could have been missed and not all patients were reached for questionnaire
assessment.
In conclusion, predicting outcome and patient satisfaction based on the
fact that the surgical procedure to be performed is a conversion rather than a revision
is not useful. Nevertheless, most cTHAs can be performed using primary implants, and
most patients report no major complications and high satisfaction.
Anzeige
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This article does not contain any studies conducted by either author on
human or animal participants.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included
in the study.
Anzeige
Competing interests
MY, JA, OA, and AD declare to have no conflict of interest.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other
third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise
stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction
notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00572-0"