Background: Management of pseudotumors following hip arthroplasty remains a subject of debate. This study aims to assess implant survival in relation to clinical variables and compares the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage revision surgeries. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 55 cases of pseudotumor surgically treated between 2004 and 2023 at a single tertiary care center. Patients underwent either one-stage (44%) or two-stage (29%) revision procedures. The following clinical and demographical information were collected: gender, age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) (calculated by dividing the patients' weight by their height squared solid mass), the American Society of Anaesthesiologist values (ASA), a diagnosis of pseudotumor identified by radiology and histological examination, time of diagnosis, surgery treatment, and follow-up. Implant and patient survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The mean follow-up was up to 67 months (95% CI 43.43–95.29), and the mean age at diagnosis was 56 years (95% CI 53–59). Revision strategy correlated with CRP levels (p = 0.013) and tumor size (p = 0.003). Ten complications (18%) occurred at a mean of 10 months, including wound issues (1), dislocations (4), abductor dysfunctions (4), and deep infection (1). Implant failure occurred in 3 cases (5%). Implant survival was 92% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68–0.97) and 80% at 10 years (95% CI 0.44–0.94). Fourteen patients died by final follow-up; 2 deaths (14%) were surgery related. Overall patient survival was 83% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68–0.92) and 67% at 10 years (95% CI 0.48–0.80). Postoperative Harris Hip Score (n = 34) averaged 73.2 (95% CI 68.6–77.8). Conclusions: Surgery is recommended for pseudotumor, although the optimal approach remains argued. Our data support a two-stage revision for large pseudotumors with elevated inflammatory markers. Revision surgery provides good function and low implant failure risk, but patient mortality remains significant due to fragility.

Laranga, R., Cevolani, L., Staals, E.L., Mammone, A., Campanacci, L., Dozza, B., et al. (2026). Retrospective Analysis of Pseudotumor of the Hip: Clinical Management and Outcomes. ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 18(9), 1904-1915 [10.1111/os.70349].

Retrospective Analysis of Pseudotumor of the Hip: Clinical Management and Outcomes

Laranga, Roberta;Cevolani, Luca;Staals, Eric Lodewijk;Mammone, Anna;Campanacci, Laura;Dozza, Barbara;Donati, Davide Maria;Bianchi, Giuseppe
2026

Abstract

Background: Management of pseudotumors following hip arthroplasty remains a subject of debate. This study aims to assess implant survival in relation to clinical variables and compares the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage revision surgeries. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 55 cases of pseudotumor surgically treated between 2004 and 2023 at a single tertiary care center. Patients underwent either one-stage (44%) or two-stage (29%) revision procedures. The following clinical and demographical information were collected: gender, age at diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) (calculated by dividing the patients' weight by their height squared solid mass), the American Society of Anaesthesiologist values (ASA), a diagnosis of pseudotumor identified by radiology and histological examination, time of diagnosis, surgery treatment, and follow-up. Implant and patient survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The mean follow-up was up to 67 months (95% CI 43.43–95.29), and the mean age at diagnosis was 56 years (95% CI 53–59). Revision strategy correlated with CRP levels (p = 0.013) and tumor size (p = 0.003). Ten complications (18%) occurred at a mean of 10 months, including wound issues (1), dislocations (4), abductor dysfunctions (4), and deep infection (1). Implant failure occurred in 3 cases (5%). Implant survival was 92% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68–0.97) and 80% at 10 years (95% CI 0.44–0.94). Fourteen patients died by final follow-up; 2 deaths (14%) were surgery related. Overall patient survival was 83% at 5 years (95% CI 0.68–0.92) and 67% at 10 years (95% CI 0.48–0.80). Postoperative Harris Hip Score (n = 34) averaged 73.2 (95% CI 68.6–77.8). Conclusions: Surgery is recommended for pseudotumor, although the optimal approach remains argued. Our data support a two-stage revision for large pseudotumors with elevated inflammatory markers. Revision surgery provides good function and low implant failure risk, but patient mortality remains significant due to fragility.
2026
Laranga, R., Cevolani, L., Staals, E.L., Mammone, A., Campanacci, L., Dozza, B., et al. (2026). Retrospective Analysis of Pseudotumor of the Hip: Clinical Management and Outcomes. ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 18(9), 1904-1915 [10.1111/os.70349].
Laranga, Roberta; Cevolani, Luca; Staals, Eric Lodewijk; Mammone, Anna; Campanacci, Laura; Dozza, Barbara; Donati, Davide Maria; Bianchi, Giuseppe...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/1084771
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact