Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of residents from Western Victoria who underwent a hip or knee revision surgery, 2011–13

From: Revision joint replacement surgeries of the hip and knee across geographic region and socioeconomic status in the western region of Victoria: a cross-sectional multilevel analysis of registry data

  Revision joint replacement surgeries
Total (n = 895) Hip (n = 542) Knee (n = 353)
Women, n (%) 482 (53.8%) 291 (53.7%) 191 (54.1%)
Age group (years), n (%)
 0–49 37 (4.1%) 21 (3.9%) 16 (4.5%)
 50–59 115 (12.8%) 66 (12.2%) 49 (13.9%)
 60–69 301 (33.6%) 171 (31.5%) 130 (36.8%)
 70–79 283 (31.6%) 176 (32.5%) 107 (30.3%)
  ≥ 80 159 (17.8%) 108 (19.9%) 51 (14.4%)
Socioeconomic quintiles, n (%)
 Quintile 1b 236 (26.4%) 140 (25.8%) 96 (27.2%)
 Quintile 2 258 (28.8%) 139 (25.6%) 119 (33.7%)
 Quintile 3 219 (24.5%) 140 (25.8%) 79 (22.4%)
 Quintile 4 148 (16.5%) 99 (18.3%) 49 (13.9%)
 Quintile 5c 34 (3.8%) 24 (4.4%) 10 (2.8%)
aReasons for joint replacement, n (%)
 Arthrofibrosis 10 (1.1%) 10 (2.8%)
 Erosion d 11 (1.2%) 5 (0.9%) 6 (1.7%)
 Fracture 49 (5.5%) 46 (8.5%) 3 (0.8%)
 Implant breakage e 20 (0.6%) 13 (2.4%) 7 (2.0%)
 Infection 151 (16.9%) 74 (13.6%) 77 (21.8%)
 Instability 20 (2.2%) 1 (0.2%) 19 (5.4%)
 Loosening/lysis 346 (38.7%) 215 (39.7%) 131 (37.1%)
 Metal-related pathology 95 (10.6%) 82 (15.1%) 13 (3.7%)
 Other f 37 (4.1%) 24 (4.4%) 13 (3.7%)
 Pain 54 (6.0%) 13 (2.4%) 41 (11.6%)
 Progression of disease 21 (2.3%) 21 (5.9%)
 Prosthesis dislocation 65 (7.3%) 63 (11.6%) 2 (0.6%)
 Wear g 16 (1.8%) 6 (1.1%) 10 (2.8%)
  1. aRevisions may have been performed for more than one reason
  2. b Most disadvantaged; c Most advantaged; d erosion includes chrondrolyses, acetabular, patella erosion; e implant breakage of the acetabular, femoral, head, patella, tibial, tibial insert, stem; f other includes bearing dislocation, heterotopic bone, leg length discrepancy, malalignment, malposition, osteonecrosis, synovitis, tumour; g ‘wear’ of the acetabular insert, patella, tibial, tibial insert