Taisha Marie D'Apollonio, Marieke L T Hopman, Thomas Sullivan, John Matthew Abrahams, Neil P Sheth, Lucian Bogdan Solomon, Stuart Adam Callary
{"title":"Increased risk of early failure of multiply revised total hip arthroplasty.","authors":"Taisha Marie D'Apollonio, Marieke L T Hopman, Thomas Sullivan, John Matthew Abrahams, Neil P Sheth, Lucian Bogdan Solomon, Stuart Adam Callary","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.108B8.BJJ-2025-1379.R2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>As the demand for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) grows, understanding how successive revision procedures influence implant survivorship and patient outcomes becomes increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate the association between revision number and implant survivorship following aseptic rTHA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 845 aseptic rTHAs performed between January 2003 and December 2023. Index primary THA dates, rTHA sequence, and reoperations were sourced and verified using hospital records, national registry data, and radiological records. Cases were stratified by revision number: first (R1), second (R2), or third and beyond (R3+). Re-revision risk was evaluated using cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray competing-risk regression, with death treated as a competing event.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 845 rTHAs (717 patients), 838 (710 patients) with confirmed index THA were included: 598 R1, 155 R2, and 85 R3+. At two years, cumulative incidence of re-revision was 10.2% (95% CI 8.0 to 12.9) for R1, 14.2% (95% CI 9.6 to 20.8) for R2, and 17.7% (95% CI 11.0 to 27.7) for R3+. Unadjusted competing-risk regression demonstrated a higher cumulative incidence of re-revision in R2s compared with R1s. However, after multivariable adjustment, revision number was not independently associated with a statistically significant increase in re-revision risk. Across all revision groups, the highest risk of failure occurred within the first two postoperative years, particularly following rTHA for instability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Re-revision following aseptic rTHA occurs most frequently within the first two postoperative years, with instability representing the dominant mode of early failure. Although multiply revised hips demonstrate poorer survivorship in unadjusted analyses, competing-risk models substantiated that rTHA number alone was not independently associated with a significantly increased risk of re-revision. These findings emphasize the importance of early risk mitigation strategies and informed patient counselling in the setting of repeated rTHA.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"108-B 8","pages":"1003-1011"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.108B8.BJJ-2025-1379.R2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: As the demand for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) grows, understanding how successive revision procedures influence implant survivorship and patient outcomes becomes increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate the association between revision number and implant survivorship following aseptic rTHA.
Methods: We analyzed 845 aseptic rTHAs performed between January 2003 and December 2023. Index primary THA dates, rTHA sequence, and reoperations were sourced and verified using hospital records, national registry data, and radiological records. Cases were stratified by revision number: first (R1), second (R2), or third and beyond (R3+). Re-revision risk was evaluated using cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray competing-risk regression, with death treated as a competing event.
Results: Of 845 rTHAs (717 patients), 838 (710 patients) with confirmed index THA were included: 598 R1, 155 R2, and 85 R3+. At two years, cumulative incidence of re-revision was 10.2% (95% CI 8.0 to 12.9) for R1, 14.2% (95% CI 9.6 to 20.8) for R2, and 17.7% (95% CI 11.0 to 27.7) for R3+. Unadjusted competing-risk regression demonstrated a higher cumulative incidence of re-revision in R2s compared with R1s. However, after multivariable adjustment, revision number was not independently associated with a statistically significant increase in re-revision risk. Across all revision groups, the highest risk of failure occurred within the first two postoperative years, particularly following rTHA for instability.
Conclusion: Re-revision following aseptic rTHA occurs most frequently within the first two postoperative years, with instability representing the dominant mode of early failure. Although multiply revised hips demonstrate poorer survivorship in unadjusted analyses, competing-risk models substantiated that rTHA number alone was not independently associated with a significantly increased risk of re-revision. These findings emphasize the importance of early risk mitigation strategies and informed patient counselling in the setting of repeated rTHA.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.