A comparison of mortality rates following revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture, infection or aseptic loosening

Background: Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is comparable to neck of femur fractures. Our institution provides a regional “PPF Service”. The aim of this study was to determine the time to surgery and mortality rate for PPF, compared to revision for infection or aseptic loosening. Methods: Revision arthroplasty procedures performed for PPF, infection or aseptic loosening between January 2014 and December 2015 were identified. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups for baseline demographics, admission to higher-level care, length of stay, complications and mortality. Results: There were 37 PPF, 71 infected and 221 aseptic revisions. PPF had a higher proportion of females (65% vs. 39% in infection and 53% in aseptic; p = 0.031) and grade 3 and 4 ASA patients (p = 0.006). Median time to surgery for PPF was 8 days (95% CI, 6–16). Single-stage procedures were performed in 84% of PPF, 42% of infections and 99% of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). 19% of PPF revisions required HDU admission, 1% in the aseptic group and none in the infection group. Median length of stay was significantly different (PPF 10; infection 14; aseptic 8 days (p < 0.001). The 1-year mortality rate for PPF was 0%, 2.8% for infection and 0.9% in the aseptic group (p = 0.342). Conclusions: Despite the PPF group having higher ASA grades and more HDU admissions, our 1-year mortality rate was 0% and not significantly different to infection or aseptic loosening. Our low complication and 1-year mortality rate is encouraging and supports the safety of a regional “Periprosthetic Fracture Service”.