Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a highly effective procedure, but the increasing number of implants and patient life expectancy have led to a rise in revision surgeries. This study aims to identify and analyze the causes of THA revision within our orthopedic department in Dakar. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted over an 11-year period. All patients who underwent revision THA were included. Fractures were assessed using the Vancouver classification and bone loss was evaluated using the SOFCOT and Paprosky classifications. Results: Thirty cases were analysed. Aseptic loosening was the leading cause of revision (46.67%), with an average onset of 10 ± 8 years post-implantation. These loosenings were predominantly bipolar (80%), characterised by significant bone loss and primarily classified as SOFCOT type 2 and Paprosky grade 2A. Prosthetic instability (dislocation) was the second most common cause of failure (26.67%). Periprosthetic fractures accounted for 13.33% of cases and were all classified as Vancouver type B2, indicating an unstable femoral stem. Other causes included material wear/breakage (6.67%) and septic loosening (3.33%). Conclusion: In our practice, aseptic loosening and instability are the primary drivers of THA revision. Improving long-term outcomes will require more rigorous primary surgical techniques, advanced implants such as dual-mobility cups for high-risk patients and thorough radiological follow-up to detect mechanical failures before significant bone loss occurs.
References
[1]
Malviya, A., Abdul, N. and Khanduja, V. (2017) Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of the Registry Data. IndianJournalofOrthopaedics, 51, 405-413. https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.ijortho_177_17
[2]
Puget, J. (2005) Les prothèses totales de la hanche. Les choix. Masson Elsevier, 498.
[3]
Meira, E.P. and Zeni, J. (2014) Sports Participation Following Total Hip Arthroplasty. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 9, 839-850.
[4]
Kelmer, G., Stone, A.H., Turcotte, J. and King, P.J. (2021) Reasons for Revision: Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Mechanisms of Failure. JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofOrthopaedicSurgeons, 29, 78-87. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-19-00860
[5]
George, A. and Ofori-Atta, P. (2019) Joint Replacement Surgery in Ghana (West Africa)—An Observational Study. InternationalOrthopaedics, 43, 1041-1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04286-1
[6]
Davies, P.S., Graham, S.M., Maqungo, S. and Harrison, W.J. (2019) Total Joint Replacement in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. TropicalDoctor, 49, 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049475518822239
[7]
Bozic, K.J., Kurtz, S.M., Lau, E., Ong, K., Vail, T.P. and Berry, D.J. (2009) The Epidemiology of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States. TheJournalofBoneandJointSurgery-AmericanVolume, 91, 128-133. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.h.00155
[8]
Gastaud, O., Cambas, P.M. and Tabutin, J. (2016) Reprises de PTH par tige de première intention après échec de l’implant fémoral. RevuedeChirurgieOrthopédiqueetTraumatologique, 102, 118-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcot.2016.01.013
[9]
Lebeau, N., Bayle, M., Belhaouane, R., Chelli, M., Havet, E., Brunschweiler, B., et al. (2017) Reprises de PTH par implant acétabulaire double mobilité cimenté dans une armature métallique: Analyse d’une série de 62 cas à 5 ans de recul minimal. RevuedeChirurgieOrthopédiqueetTraumatologique, 103, 477-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcot.2017.05.026
[10]
Oltean-Dan, D., Apostu, D., Tomoaia, G., et al. (2017) Causes of Revision after Total Hip Arthroplasty in an Orthopedics and Traumatology Regional Center. Clujul Medical, 90, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-2136
[11]
Fen, X., Gu, J. and Zhou, Y. (2022) Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Failure: Aseptic Loosening Remains the Most Common Cause of Revision. American Journal of Translational Research, 14, 7080-7089.
[12]
Kahlenberg, C.A., Swarup, I., Krell, E.C., Heinz, N. and Figgie, M.P. (2019) Causes of Revision in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty. TheJournalofArthroplasty, 34, 1435-1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.014