High-volume hospitals do not perform better than low-volume hospitals in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of re-revision risk and mortality based on the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44331Keywords:
Arthroplasty, HipAbstract
Background and purpose: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a complex procedure that may benefit from centralization. We examined the association between annual hospital volume of rTHA and re-revision risk and mortality.
Methods: We included all rTHAs between 2007 and 2022 in general hospitals, registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI; n = 12,515). Hospitals were categorized into low (< 25 rTHA/year) or high volume (≥ 25 rTHA/year). Competing-risk analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to assess implant re-revision and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for mortality. Results were stratified into septic (permanent Girdlestone, 1-stage, and 2-stage revisions) and aseptic first revisions.
Results: 1-stage septic revisions showed a higher risk of re-revision in high-volume hospitals (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–2.4). We found no difference in re-revision risk after DAIR (HR 1.1, CI 0.9–1.3). 2-stage septic revisions were more often performed in high-volume hospitals (5% vs 2%). There was no statistical difference in re-revision rates between hospitals after revision for aseptic loosening (HR 1.1, CI 0.9–1.4), dislocation (HR 1.1, CI 0.9–1.4), and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.1, CI 0.8–1.5). Mortality showed no differences between groups, neither for septic nor aseptic revisions.
Conclusion: There was no difference between high-volume hospitals and low-volume hospitals regarding risk for re-revision after aseptic loosening, dislocation and periprosthetic fracture, and septic DAIR and mortality. In high-volume hospitals, 1-stage septic revisions was associated with a significantly higher re-revision risk. 2-stage revisions are more frequent in high-volume hospitals, indicating more complex pathology.
Downloads
References
Schwartz A M, Farley K X, Guild G N, Bradbury T L, Jr. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35(6s): S79-s85. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
Patel I, Nham F, Zalikha A K, El-Othmani M M. Epidemiology of total hip arthroplasty: demographics, comorbidities and outcomes. Arthroplasty 2023; 5(1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s42836-022-00156-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-022-00156-1
LROI. Online LROI annual report 2023. Dutch Arthroplasty Register; 2023. Available from: http://www.lroi-report.nl
Kuijpers M F L, Hannink G, van Steenbergen L N, Schreurs B W. Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: an analysis of 1,037 revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2020; 91(2): 165-70. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1708655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1708655
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(4): 780-5. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.F.00222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
Schwartz B E, Piponov H I, Helder C W, Mayers W F, Gonzalez M H. Revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national trends and in-hospital outcomes. Int Orthop 2016; 40(9): 1793-802. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3121-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3121-7
Badarudeen S, Shu A C, Ong K L, Baykal D, Lau E, Malkani A L. Complications after revision total hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(6): 1954-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.037
Wong J M, Liu Y L, Graves S, de Steiger R. What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473(11): 3458-64. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4215-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4215-z
Joanroy R, Gubbels S, Møller J K, Overgaard S, Varnum C. Risk of second revision and mortality following first-time revision due to prosthetic joint infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: results on 1,669 patients from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 524-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.41913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41913
Ong K L, Lau E, Suggs J, Kurtz S M, Manley M T. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468(11): 3070-6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1399-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1399-0
Nimptsch U, Mansky T. Hospital volume and mortality for 25 types of inpatient treatment in German hospitals: observational study using complete national data from 2009 to 2014. BMJ Open 2017; 7(9): e016184. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016184
Glassou E N, Hansen T B, Mäkelä K, Havelin L I, Furnes O, Badawy M, et al. Association between hospital procedure volume and risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based study within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24(3): 419-26. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2015.09.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.09.014
Ravi B, Jenkinson R, Austin P C, Croxford R, Wasserstein D, Escott B, et al. Relation between surgeon volume and risk of complications after total hip arthroplasty: propensity score matched cohort study. BMJ 2014; 348: g3284. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3284
Jeschke E, Gehrke T, Günster C, Heller K D, Leicht H, Malzahn J, et al. Low hospital volume increases revision rate and mortality following revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 17,773 cases. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(9): 2045-50. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.005
Halder A M, Gehrke T, Günster C, Heller K D, Leicht H, Malzahn J, et al. Low hospital volume increases re-revision rate following aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 23,644 cases. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35(4): 1054-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.045
Holleyman R J, Jameson S S, Meek R M D, Khanduja V, Reed M R, Judge A, et al. Association between surgeon and hospital volume and outcome of first-time revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Bone Joint J 2024; 106-b(10): 1050-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.106b10.Bjj-2024-0347.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0347.R1
van Rensch P J H, Belt M, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, van Hellemondt G G, Schreurs B W, Heesterbeek P J C. No association between hospital volume and early second revision rate in revision total knee arthroplasty in the Dutch Orthopaedic Register. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(12): 2680-4.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.05.082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.05.082
van Steenbergen L N, Denissen G A, Spooren A, van Rooden S M, van Oosterhout F J, Morrenhof J W, et al. More than 95% completeness of reported procedures in the population-based Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(4): 498-505. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307
van Veghel M H W, Belt M, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Kuijpers M F L, van der Kooi T I I, Schreurs B W, et al. Validation of the incidence of reported periprosthetic joint infections in total hip and knee arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39(4): 1054-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.10.040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.10.040
Vektis. National healthcare database 2024. Available from: http://www.vektis.nl
Van Dooren B J, Bos P, Peters R M, Van Steenbergen L N, De Visser E, Brinkman J M, et al. Time trends in case-mix and risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty in public and private hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis based on 476,312 procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 307-18. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.40906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40906
von Elm E, Altman D G, Egger M, Pocock S J, Gøtzsche P C, Vandenbroucke J P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(4): 344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Samuel L T, Sultan A A, Zhou G, Navale S, Kamath A F, Klika A K, et al. In-hospital mortality is associated with low-volume hip revision centers after septic revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2022; 45(1): 57-63. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20211124-01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20211124-01
French J M R, Deere K, Whitehouse M R, Pegg D J, Ciminello E, Valentini R, et al. The completeness of national hip and knee replacement registers. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 654-60. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.42303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42303
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marije C Vink, Rinne M Peters, Bart van Dooren, Amarens Deen, Liza N van Steenbergen, B Wim Schreurs, Wierd P Zijlstra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
