Is revision as good as primary hip replacement?

Robinson, A. H. N.; Palmer, Chris; Villar, Richard

doi:10.1302/0301-620x.81b1.0810042

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We further observed a change in QOL from before THA to after THA. The magnitude of change of QOL achieved after conversion in our study cohort was halfway between the values obtained by Robinson et al [60] after PTHA and after revision THA. In our study cohort, after conversion surgery scores in physical domains were higher than those reported by Richards and Duncan [57] and van Biezen et al [74].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

“…The RIM [61] was used to assess QOL of the patients. The RIM ( Table 2 allows the HHS to be translated directly into the RIM categories to derive QOL scores (from À1.486 indicating a state worse than death to 1.000 indicating complete normality) ( Table 3) [60]. To calculate changes in QOL between before and after surgery, information was obtained by reprocessing the preoperative collected data and from the questionnaires completed by patients at the followup.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Total Hip Arthroplasty after Hip Arthrodesis as Good as Primary Arthroplasty?

Fernández-Fairén

Murcia-Mazón

Torres

et al. 2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Conversion of hip arthrodesis to a THA reportedly provides a reasonable solution, improving function, reducing back and knee pain, and slowing degeneration of neighboring joints associated with a hip fusion. Patients generally are satisfied with conversion despite the fact that range of mobility, muscle strength, leglength discrepancy (LLD), persistence of limp, and need for assistive walking aids generally are worse than those for conventional primary THA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Total Hip Arthroplasty after Hip Arthrodesis as Good as Primary Arthroplasty?

Fernández-Fairén

Murcia-Mazón

Torres

et al. 2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sensitivity to change is an important property of an outcome assessment instrument, 12 particularly when, as in the case of RHR, improvement may be marginal. [13][14][15][16] Thirdly, we examined the sensitivity to change of both instruments among subgroups characterised by the number of previous RHRs which had been undertaken.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement

Dawson

Fitzpatrick

Frost

et al. 2001

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome which is often used after total hip replacement, and the EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) is a patient-based generic questionnaire for health assessment. In an analysis of the outcome at one year of 609 revision hip replacements (RHRs), we compared the OHS and EQ5D scores, postoperative patient satisfaction and change in pain. About 25% of the operations were repeat RHRs. At one year, 57% of patients were very pleased with their operation. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative scores and change scores for the OHS and EQ5D was high. For both instruments the effect sizes were large, but the greater effect size of the OHS suggests that it is particularly sensitive to improvements after RHR. The effect scores of the OHS declined with the number of previous RHRs, while those for the EQ5D seemed less sensitive. Our results confirm the value of the OHS in assessing outcome after RHR.

show abstract

“…After a revision, it can be expected that the patients will be less mobile than after a primary replacement. Thus, a lower wear rate might be expected (Robinson et al 1999). On the other hand, bone or cement debris from the revision, scratches on the femoral head in the case of isolated cup revision with non-modular femoral implants, and the use of 32-mm heads might increase the wear rate of revision implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider ring: An EBRA analysis of 40 cup revisions

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Reconstruction of the bone stock and fixation of the implant remain challenging problems in revision surgery. In this retrospective study, we wanted to gain information on initial stability and wear after revision with the Burch-Schneider ring.Patients and methods Between 1994 and 1998, we performed 70 reconstructions of the acetabulum with a Burch-Schneider ring in revision arthroplasty. 63 patients could be followed up clinically and radiographically. 40 cups were suitable for EBRA measurements whereas migration and wear could not be assessed by this method in 23 cases due to lack of comparability of pelvic radiographs. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years.Results 2 cups were re-revised and 14 cups had breakage or changes of position of the screws. 30 cups showed detectable migration and 18 cups detectable wear. The mean migration was 2.8 mm and the mean wear rate was 0.12 mm/year. 16 cups had detectable migration after 1 year; 11 of these 16 continued to migrate and 9 of them had screw breakage. Both re-revisions showed early migration. Early migration correlated with later screw breakage and the overall migration correlated with wear. The only risk factor found for early migration was the wear rate.Interpretation The Burch-Schneider ring is an established and reliable implant for cup revision with good clinical results, but it seems to be difficult to maintain intraoperative stability. The implants with continuous migration may lead to late clinical failure and require further observation. Wear may contribute to migration and resorption of the bone graft.

show abstract

Is revision as good as primary hip replacement?

Cited by 29 publications

References 12 publications

Is Total Hip Arthroplasty after Hip Arthrodesis as Good as Primary Arthroplasty?

Is Total Hip Arthroplasty after Hip Arthrodesis as Good as Primary Arthroplasty?

Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement

Acetabular reconstruction with the Burch-Schneider ring: An EBRA analysis of 40 cup revisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About