Revision Hip Arthroplasty Performed by Fellowship-Trained Versus Non-Fellowship-Trained Surgeons: A Comparison of Perioperative Management and Complications.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Successful revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) requires major resource allocation and a surgical team adept at managing these complex cases. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of rTHA performed by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. METHODS: A national administrative database was utilized to identify 5,880 patients who underwent aseptic rTHA and 1,622 patients who underwent head-liner exchange for infection by fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained surgeons from 2010 to 2020 with a 5-year follow-up. Postoperative opioid and anticoagulant prescriptions were compared among surgeons. Patients treated by fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained surgeons had propensity scores matched based on age, sex, comorbidity index, and diagnosis. The five-year surgical complications were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the odds of failure following head-liner exchange when performed by a fellowship-trained versus non-fellowship-trained surgeon. RESULTS: Aseptic rTHA patients treated by fellowship-trained surgeons received fewer opioids (132 versus 165 milligram morphine equivalents per patient) and non-aspirin anticoagulants (21.4 versus 32.0%, P < 0.001). Fellowship-training was associated with lower dislocation rates (9.9 versus 14.2%, P = 0.011), fewer postoperative infections, and fewer periprosthetic fractures and re-revisions (15.2 versus 21.3%, P < 0.001). Head-liner exchange for infection performed by fellowship-trained surgeons was associated with lower odds of failure (31.2 versus 45.7%, odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.91, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Revision THA performed by adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons results in fewer re-revisions in aseptic cases and head-liner exchanges. Variations in resources, volumes, and perioperative protocols may account for some of the differences.