Higher revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty among patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with osteoarthritis

Listen to Amy and Simon discuss the paper 'Higher revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty among patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with osteoarthritis' published in the December 2025 issue of Bone & Joint Open.

Click here to read the paper.

Be the first to know when the next episode is live! Follow our social media accounts, @BoneJointPortal and @BoneJointOpen on X for updates!

Transcript

[00:00:00] Welcome back to another episode of AI Talks with Bone & Joint from the publishers of Bone & Joint Open. Today's discussion revolves around a rather intriguing paper titled 'Higher revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty among patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with osteoarthritis' published in December 2025 by Lorenz Pichler and colleagues.

Hello everyone. I'm Amy joined by Simon. This paper looks at some pivotal differences in hip replacements between patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Let's discuss why this research is so crucial.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the current revision rates for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis patients. This is of particular interest as there have been considerable advancements in treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Yet it remains unclear how these improvements have influenced revision surgery rates.

The study analyzed data from the German Arthroplasty Registry covering surgeries from [00:01:00] 2012 to 2024. The researchers evaluated 12,750 total hip arthroplasty procedures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 528,435 in patients with osteoarthritis. That is quite an extensive dataset. It's true. The study employed Kaplan-Meier estimations to calculate cumulative revision rates over nine years. The examined factors such as the type of revisions, major versus minor, and the causes, aseptic versus septic.

And intriguingly, they discovered that patients with rheumatoid arthritis had higher cumulative revision rates for both major and minor revisions compared to those with osteoarthritis.

Higher revision rates are certainly concerning. The study indicated that at nine years, major revision rates were at 5.1% for rheumatoid arthritis patients compared to 3.1% for osteoarthritis patients. For minor revisions, the rates were 1.7% in rheumatoid arthritis patients versus [00:02:00] 1.1% in osteoarthritis patients. These numbers are significant and underscore the elevated risks associated with rheumatoid arthritis.

Amy, it's also worth noting that even after adjusting for variables like age, sex and BMI, rheumatoid arthritis was still linked to a higher risk of major and minor revisions.

Specifically, the hazard ratio for major revisions was 1.5 and for minor revisions it was 1.6. This implies that rheumatoid arthritis inherently poses a higher risk, irrespective of other factors.

Absolutely Simon. The study also shed light on some interesting details about implant fixation methods. Cementless fixation was predominant in both groups, but they found that hybrid fixation was associated with a lower risk of major revisions in rheumatoid arthritis patients compared to fully cementless fixation. This could suggest that hybrid fixation might be more advantageous for rheumatoid arthritis patients, possibly due to the reduced bone mineral density often found in these [00:03:00] patients.

That's a critical observation. Yet, while hybrid fixation showed promise, cementless fixation was still the most prevalent. In rheumatoid arthritis patients, cementless fixation accounted for 69% of the cases compared to 78% in osteoarthritis patients.

Another key aspect the study discussed was the role of systemic factors in rheumatoid arthritis patients such as compromised bone mineral density, and the frequent use of immunosuppressive therapies. These factors can complicate postoperative outcomes and increase the likelihood of both aseptic and septic complications. Indeed, and it's interesting to note that while the risk of septic complications has historically been higher in rheumatoid arthritis patients, the study found that the risk of aseptic revisions is now more prominent.

This shift could be attributed to improved disease management and newer antirheumatic therapies, such as disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, which have reduced rheumatoid arthritis disease activity.

It's encouraging to see advancements in rheumatoid arthritis [00:04:00] treatments translating into reduced septic complications.

However, the increasing aseptic revisions in these patients highlight the necessity for continued research into refined surgical techniques, such as implant fixation and optimized perioperative care strategies, including patient-specific minimization of antirheumatic therapy interruption.

Exactly. As rheumatoid arthritis management continues to evolve, it will be crucial to understand how these advancements intersect with surgical therapies and their outcomes. Future research needs to clarify the direct impact of new antirheumatic treatments on revision rates, and optimize these therapeutic strategies for patients undergoing arthroplasty.

In conclusion, patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty face a higher risk of both major and minor revisions compared to those with osteoarthritis. While hybrid fixation methods appear promising for reducing these risks, cementless fixation still remains the most common choice. These [00:05:00] findings underscore the importance of personalized surgical approaches and ongoing advancements in rheumatoid arthritis management.

Well said Amy. Thank you everyone for joining us on this episode of AI Talks with Bone & Joint. If you're interested in the full paper, check out the December 2025 issue of Bone & Joint Open. Until next time.