Posterior Approach to Optimise Patient-Reported Outcome from Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction

Most total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in the UK are performed through a posterior or lateral surgical approach. We aimed to investigate any difference in outcome from revision THA according to the approach at primary and revision THA surgery.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 205 patients who underwent revision THA for aseptic loosening. Patients rated their pain from 0-10 and completed the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC and Short form-12 questionnaires.

Results

205 patients (209 hips) from a cohort of 238 patients (243 hips, 86%) were available for analysis. The mean follow-up was 5 years (SD 1.71). Grouping by approach 20% (43/209) had both primary and revision procedures via a lateral approach, 20% (43/209) had their primary surgery via a lateral approach and their revision surgery via a posterior approach, whilst 60% (123/209) had both procedures via a posterior approach. The WOMAC and OHS were significantly better in patients who had a posterior approach for both primary and revision surgery, compared to those that did not (OHS p = 0.028, WOMAC p = 0.026). We found no significant differences in pain, satisfaction or health-related quality of life between the groups.

Discussion

Choice of approach for revision hip arthroplasty is influenced by a number of factors, but in clinical situations where either a lateral or posterior approach could be used, the posterior approach appears to be associated with better joint-specific outcomes. Registry data may help further explore the associations between surgical approach and the outcome from revision THA.

Keywords

Arthroplasty Hip Joint patient outcome assessment Replacement Revision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 11^th Annual Report. National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 2014. Available at: http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2011th%20Annual%20Report%202014.pdf. Accessed September 2016.

Jolles

B.M.

, Bogoch

E.R.

Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 19(3): CD003828.

Park

Y.S.

, Moon

Y.W.

, Lim

B.H.

, Shon

M.S.

, Lim

S.J.

A comparative study of the posterolateral and anterolateral approaches for isolated acetabular revision.

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(7): 1021–1026.

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2013. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2013. Accessed September 2016.

American Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2013. Available at: https://teamwork.aaos.org/ajrr/AJRR%20Documents/AJRR_2013_Annual_Report.pdf. Accessed September 2016.

Garellick

, Karrholm

, Lindahl

, Malchau

, Rogmark

, Rolfson

Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2013. Available at: http://www.shpr.se/en/Publications/DocumentsReports.aspx. Accessed September 2016.

Havelin

L.I.

, Furnes

, Engesaeter

. Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures, 2015 Annual Report. Available at: http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/Rapporter/Report2015_english.pdf. Accessed September 2016.

National Research Ethics Service. Defining research. 2007. Available from: http://www.nres.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alld=355.

Mahomed

, Gandhi

, Daltroy

, Katz

J.N.

The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

Arthritis. 2011; 2011: 591253.

10.

Dawson

, Fitzpatrick

, Carr

, Murray

Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78(2): 185–190.

11.

Bellamy

, Buchanan

W.W.

, Goldsmith

C.H.

, Campbell

, Stitt

L.W.

Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

J Rheumatol. 1988; 15(12): 1833–1840.

12.

Ware

Jr. , Kosinski

, Keller

S.D.

A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Med Care. 1996; 34(3): 220–233.

13.

Murray

D.W.

, Fitzpatrick

, Rogers

. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(8): 1010–1014.

14.

Beard

D.J.

, Harris

, Dawson

. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(1): 73–79.

15.

Tubach

, Ravaud

, Baron

. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64(1): 29–33.

16.

SooHoo

Li Z, Chenock K, Bozic KJ. Responsiveness of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty patients.

J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 176–191.

17.

Kerboull

Selecting the surgical approach for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015; 101(1) (Suppl): S171–S178.

18.

Masterson

E.L.

, Masri

B.A.

, Duncan

C.P.

Surgical approaches in revision hip replacement.

J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998; 6(2): 84–92.

19.

Glassman

A.H.

Exposure for revision: total hip replacement.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 420: 39–47.

20.

Manrique

, Chen

A.F.

, Heller

, Hozack

W.J.

Direct anterior approach for revision total hip arthroplasty.

Ann Transl Med. 2014; 2(10): 100–105.

21.

Baker

A.S.

, Bitounis

V.C.

Abductor function after total hip replacement. An electromyographic and clinical review.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989; 71(1): 47–50.

22.

von Roth

, Abdel

M.P.

, Wauer

. Significant muscle damage after multiple revision total hip replacements through the direct lateral approach. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(12): 1618–1622.

23.

Berstock

J.R.

, Blom

A.W.

, Beswick

A.D.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications following the posterior and lateral surgical approaches to total hip arthroplasty.

Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015; 97(1): 11–16.

24.

Alberton

G.M.

, High

W.A.

, Morrey

B.F.

Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84-A(10): 1788–1792.

25.

Garbuz

D.S.

, Xu

, Sayre

E.C.

Patients’ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score.

J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(7): 998–1004.

26.

Imam

M.A.

, Barke

, Stafford

G.H.

, Parkin

, Field

R.E.

Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: a source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets?

Hip Int. 2014; 24(5): 465–472.