Introduction Patients with degenerative hip disease frequently present with bilateral involvement that requires surgical management. The main goal when treating these patients is to achieve the maximum efficiency without increasing risk of perioperative complications; therefore, the decision regarding the best moment to operate the second hip becomes relevant. Although studies have addressed this topic, whether a simultaneous or staged surgery should be performed remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine, based on available evidence, the optimum strategy in terms of safety to operate the second hip in patients with bilateral involvement. Materials and Methods A meta-analysis was planned. A systematic review of the literature was performed including clinical trials or observational analytical studies comparing the safety of bilateral arthroplasty performed simultaneously or staged by measuring major and minor complications. The appropriateness of a meta-analysis was evaluated through the detailed analysis of the risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies. Results Thirteen studies were selected after the systematic review. A wide variability in the methodological designs was found with a critical risk of bias in most of them. Considerable heterogeneity was detected in defining staged surgery in the cointerventions and how the outcomes were defined and measured. In response to these findings, a meta-analysis was considered not appropriate. The results showed no differences in the risk of mortality or systemic complications in young and healthy patients between simultaneous or staged surgeries. However, increased risk of complications for staged surgeries performed during the same hospitalization was observed. Conclusions Available evidence is very heterogeneous and the quality of evidence is low. The available evidence supports the performance of simultaneous hip arthroplasty in selected patients (not older than 65 years, ASA 1-2, without cardiovascular comorbidities) and suggests the avoidance of staged surgeries within the same hospitalization.

The risk of thromboembolic events after hip revision arthroplasty might be higher than in primary hip arthroplasty. However, evidence regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis in revisions is scarce. The purpose of this study is to determine whether thromboprophylaxis recommendations for primary arthroplasty produce similar results in hip revision arthroplasty. This comparative cohort study retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty and hip revision surgery between March 2004 and December 2015, who received thromboprophylaxis according to local clinical practice guidelines for primary hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and the presence of major bleeding events were assessed during hospitalization and at 3 months after discharge and compared between groups. The overall prevalence of thromboembolic events in the hip revision surgery cohort and in the primary hip cohort was 1.62% and 1.35%, respectively ( P = .801). The 38.4% of hip revision patients and 20.3% of primary hip patients presented major bleeding events. Thromboembolic disease outcomes with the use of a standardized thromboprophylaxis regimen were similar in both cohorts, regardless of the high variability of hip revision surgery and the increased risk of complications. Implementation of this regimen is recommended in patients requiring joint replacement revision surgery.

Level II, cohort study.

No abstract