Abstract
Introduction and Aims: To compare the outcomes between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty in patients at one institution with regard to demographics, complication rates and functional outcome. Further study of the problems associated with revision total hip replacement, focused on complication rates, would appear to be warranted.
Method: All patients were entered prospectively in a database and were assessed by means of physical examination, radiographs, SF-36 and WOMAC questionnaires. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years with a range of two to five years. Patients were seen on an annual basis.
Results: Five hundred and forty-seven patients underwent primary total hip replacement and 213 patients underwent revision total hip replacement. 53.4% of patients undergoing primary and 52% of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty were female. Mean age at primary hip replacement 61.8 years, revision hip replacement 67.1 years. Post-operative complication rate was 7.6% in primary patients and 14.7% in revision patients (p< .05); there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to intra-operative fracture, implant loosening or post-operative infection; there was a statistically significant difference in terms of dislocation with 0.8% of primary arthroplasties and 5.6% of revision patients sustaining at least one dislocation following their surgery (p< .01). Both groups of patients had a statistically significant improvement between their pre- and post-operative WOMAC and SF-36 physical scores (p< .0001); however, there was also a statistically significant difference in outcome when the two groups were compared with primary patients having significantly improved WOMAC scores (p< .0001) and significantly improved SF-36 physical socres (p< .0001).
Conclusions: Revision hip arthroplasty does not bring to the patient the same degree of benefit as the primary operation. The reason for this is multi-factorial and includes a higher complication rate and lower functional outcome.
These abstracts were prepared by Editorial Secretary, George Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, The William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
One or more of the listed authors are receiving or have received benefits or support from a recognised academic body for the pursuance of the study.
