Early death following revision total hip arthroplasty

Decreasing trend of inpatient mortality rates of aseptic versus septic revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 681,034 cases

BACKGROUND

While most revision total hip arthroplasties (rTHAs) are for aseptic loosening/instability, infection accounts for approximately 16%. The purpose of this study was to: (1) quantify mortality rates of aseptic versus septic rTHA; (2) determine if mortality rates have changed over the past 20 years; and (3) identify associated preoperative risk factors, focusing on the utility/validity of the Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI).

METHODS

ICD-9/ICD-10 codes were used to identify patients undergoing rTHA in the National Inpatient Sample database between 1998 and 2017. A total of 681,034 cases (576,143 aseptic THA and 104,891 septic THA) were identified. For each patient, demographic variables including age, sex, race, insurance type, ECI, and inhospital mortality were gathered. A logistic regression model was constructed to assess risk of inhospital mortality.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2017, inpatient mortality rates of aseptic and septic rTHA decreased from 0.83 to 0.45%, and from 2.58 to 1.24%, respectively. Septic rTHA was independently associated with higher odds of mortality relative to aseptic (odds ratio (OR): 2.305, 95% confidence interval (CI): (2.014, 2.638), p < 0.0001). Increased ECI was associated with higher odds of mortality at both medium (OR: 5.147, 95% CI: (4.433,5.977), p < 0.0001) and high index scores (OR: 13.714, 95% CI: (11.519,16.326), p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality rates for both aseptic and septic rTHA have been declining over the past 20 years, potentially due to patient selection guidelines and advances in medical management. Our study confirms that the ECI is independently associated with increased inpatient mortality.

Understanding the 30-day mortality burden after revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure that burdens the healthcare system. Despite being associated with worse outcomes relative to its primary counterpart, postoperative mortality after revision THA remains ill-defined. The present study aimed to (1) establish the overall 30-day mortality rate after revision THA and (2) explore the mortality rate stratified by age, comorbidity burden, and aseptic versus septic failure.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision THA from 2011 to 2019. A total of 23,501 patients were identified and grouped into mortality (n = 161) and mortality-free (n = 23,340) cohorts. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and aseptic/septic failure were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality was 0.69%. The mortality rate by age group (normalised per 1000 patients) was 0 (18-39 years [Y]), 0.67 (40-49 Y), 1.10 (50-59 Y), 2.58 (60-69 Y), 6.15 (70-79 Y) 19.32 (80-89 Y), and 58.22 (90+Y) (p < 0.001). The mortality rate by ASA classification (normalised per 1000 patients) was 0 (ASA I), 1.47 (ASA II), 6.94 (ASA III), 45.42 (ASA IV), and 200 (ASA V) (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rate for the septic and aseptic cohorts was 1.03% and 0.65%, respectively (p = 0.038). CCI scores (p < 0.001), diabetes (p < 0.001), systematic sepsis (p < 0.001), poor functional status (p < 0.001), BMI < 24.9 kg/m2 (p < 0.001), and dirty/infected wounds (p < 0.001) were all associated with increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

1 in 145 patients will suffer mortality during the 30 days after revision THA. PJI-related revision THA was associated with 1.5-fold increase in 30-day mortality rate compared to its aseptic counterpart. Certain patient determinants and baseline comorbidities, as measured by ASA and CCI scores, were associated with higher 30-day mortality rates. Therefore, it is imperative to identify such risk factors and implement perioperative patient optimisation pathways to mitigate the risk among vulnerable patients.

Analysis of the Need for Postoperative Drainage Application for Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the evidence regarding the effect and safety of drainage after the hip arthroplasty in randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND

Although the standard of hip replacement has matured in recent years, the need for postoperative drainage is still controversial which also is a clinical problem that needs to be addressed.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Cochrane methods and Prisma guideline. Data Resources. A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid, Wan Fang database, CNKI, and CBM database was carried out from January 1, 2000, to December, 2021. Review Methods. The quality of included randomized controlled trials was assessed individually by two reviewers independently using criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized control trials involving 3354 participants were included in this analysis. From the above analysis, we can know that compared with nondrainage, there was a statistically significant difference in VAS score on the postoperative first day (SD = -0.6; 95% CI: -0.79, -0.41) and second day (SD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.58, -0.18), hematocrit reduction (MD =2.89; 95% CI: 1.3, 4.48), blood transfusion rate (OR =1.47; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.92), change of thigh circumstance (SMD = -0.48; 95% CI: -0.66, -0.31), and hospital stay (MD = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.39) in drainage. However, there were no statistically significant differences in hemoglobin and hematocrit level, hip function, total blood loss, transfusion volume, dressing use, and complications between them.

CONCLUSION

Drainage after hip arthroplasty can reduce swelling in the thigh and relieve pain while no drainage can bring down hematocrit reduction, decrease dressing uses, and shorten the hospital stay which promotes rapid recovery. This review provides a detailed theoretical reference for the proper clinical application of drains and improves the efficient use of resources.

Mortality After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In counseling patients about the complications of revision total hip arthroplasty (revTHA), it is imperative that mortality be considered. The actual mortality rate by indication of revision is ill-defined. The purpose of this study is to determine the mortality rate after revTHA.

METHODS

An institutional database identified 596 patients who had undergone revTHA between 2012 and 2018. Medical records, national, state, and local death indexes were queried for mortality status and indication for revTHA. For survivors, the last clinical visit date was used for censoring in the mortality analysis. Mortality rates were calculated for all clinical patients and then by specific indication for revision.

RESULTS

The overall 2-year mortality rate following revTHA was 19.5 deaths per 1000 or 1 in 51 patients. Patients presenting with a periprosthetic fracture had a significantly higher 2-year mortality rate of 74.5 deaths per 1000 or 1 in 13 patients (P < .001), while an indication of dislocation or instability had a slightly higher 2-year mortality rate of 50.3 per 1000 (1 in 20) but this difference was not significant (P = .531). Other indications such as mechanical loosening or infection did not have a significantly different mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

The overall 2-year mortality rate following revTHA was 19.5 deaths per 1000 which was largely attributed to patients with a periprosthetic fracture (74.5 per 1000) with other indications not significantly impacting mortality. Mortality rates and specific rates by indication for revision should be considered when counseling patients prior to revTHA.

The CARDE-B Scoring System Predicts 30-Day Mortality After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

There exists a substantial risk of having a perioperative complication after revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The complex shared decision-making between surgeon and patient would benefit from a high-fidelity tool to identify patients at risk for mortality after revision TJA. Therefore, we developed the CARDE-B score. CARDE-B is an acronym for congestive heart failure, albumin or malnutrition (<3.5 mg/dL), renal failure on dialysis, dependence for daily living, elderly (>65 years of age), and body mass index <25 kg/m2. We developed and validated the CARDE-B score to determine the risk of death within 30 days of a revision TJA.

METHODS

A total of 13,118 revision TJAs (40% hip and 60% knee) from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database were analyzed. A simple 1-point scoring system, CARDE-B, was created for predicting 30-day mortality after revision TJA, based on a logistic regression model. The CARDE-B scoring system assigns 1 point to each criterion in the acronym: congestive heart failure, albumin (<3.5 mg/dL), renal failure on dialysis, dependence for daily living, elderly (>65 years of age), and body mass index of <25 kg/m2. The CARDE-B scoring system was compared with 2 commonly utilized scores: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification and the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5). The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the accuracy of each model. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess goodness of fit. Finally, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used for external validation of the CARDE-B score in 19,153 patients who underwent revision TJA in 2017.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients (0.7%) did not survive 30 days after revision TJA. The AUC for the logistic regression model was 0.88 in both the derivation and internal validation samples using NSQIP. The predicted probability of 30-day mortality after revision TJA increased stepwise from <0.01% for a CARDE-B score of 0 points to 39% for a CARDE-B score of 5 points. The AUC for the CARDE-B score predicting 30-day mortality after revision TJA was 0.85. This was more accurate (p < 0.001) than the ASA physical status classification (AUC, 0.77) and the mFI-5 (AUC, 0.67). The AUC for the CARDE-B score in the NIS external validation set was 0.75. The Hosmer-Lemeshow p value for goodness of fit was 0.34, indicating goodness of fit in the external validation sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The CARDE-B score is a simple system that predicts the risk of death within 30 days of a revision TJA, offering surgeons and patients a valuable and validated risk-stratification tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Early death following revision total knee arthroplasty

All patients from our institution who underwent revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or were added to the waiting list for revision TKA between 2003 and 2013 were analysed to describe the timing and degree of excess early surgical mortality. We measured the excess surgical mortality at 90-days for the revision TKA group compared to the waiting list group as 0.37% (95% CI 0.10%-0.65%, p = 0.075). A larger sample size will be required to give a more accurate measurement and thus we encourage other authors with access to larger cohorts to use our methods to quantify excess mortality after revision TKA.

Patient and implant survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty

Aims

We compared implant and patient survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFFs) during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with matched controls.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared 4831 hips with IOPFF and 48 154 propensity score matched primary THAs without IOPFF implanted between 2004 and 2016, which had been recorded on a national joint registry. Implant and patient survival rates were compared between groups using Cox regression.

Results

Ten-year stem survival was worse in the IOPFF group (p < 0.001). Risk of revision for aseptic loosening increased 7.2-fold following shaft fracture and almost 2.8-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.001). Risk of periprosthetic fracture of the femur revision increased 4.3-fold following calcar-crack and 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.01). Risk of instability revision was 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture and 2.4-fold after calcar crack (p < 0.001). Risk of 90-day mortality following IOPFF without revision was 1.7-fold and 4.0-fold after IOPFF with early revision surgery versus uncomplicated THA (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

IOPFF increases risk of stem revision and mortality up to ten years following surgery. The risk of revision depends on IOPFF subtype and mortality risk increases with subsequent revision surgery. Surgeons should carefully diagnose and treat IOPFF to minimize fracture progression and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1199–1208

Association between patient survival following reoperation after total hip replacement and the reason for reoperation: an analysis of 9,926 patients in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose - The association between long-term patient survival and elective primary total hip replacement (THR) has been described extensively. The long-term survival following reoperation of THR is less well understood. We investigated the relative survival of patients undergoing reoperation following elective THR and explored an association between the indication for the reoperation and relative survival. Patients and methods - In this observational cohort study we selected the patients who received an elective primary THR and subsequent reoperations during 1999-2017 as recorded in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The selected cohort was followed until the end of the study period, censoring or death. The indications for 1st- and eventual 2nd-time reoperations were analyzed and the relative survival ratio of the observed survival and the expected survival was determined. Results - There were 9,926 1st-time reoperations and of these 2,558 underwent further reoperations. At 5 years after the latest reoperation, relative survival following 1st-time reoperations was 0.94% (95% CI 0.93-0.96) and 0.90% (CI 0.87-0.92) following 2nd-time reoperations. At 5 years patients with a 1st-time reoperation for aseptic loosening had higher survival than expected; however, reoperations performed for periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, and infection had lower survival. Interpretation - The relative survival following 1st- and 2nd-time reoperations in elective THR patients differs by reason for reoperation. The impact of reoperation on life expectancy is more obvious for infection/dislocation and periprosthetic fracture.