Skip to main content
EFORT Open Reviews logoLink to EFORT Open Reviews
. 2017 May 11;2(5):189–194. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160059

Sports activities after total hip arthroplasty

Martin Krismer 1,
PMCID: PMC5489758  PMID: 28698803

Abstract

  • Performing sports after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be associated with a risk of
    • Trauma (fracture and dislocation)
    • Shorter implant survival
  • There is no proof that trauma occurs more often than in healthy individuals, but sequelae may be more severe.

  • Shorter implant survival due to repetitive high contact forces is a fact, due to increased wear. The 15 year survival in highly active patients seems to be around 80%.

  • Surgeons can address the needs of active patients by using bearings with low wear rates, and femoral heads up to 36 mm in diameter.

  • The data provided in this review may help to fully inform active patients of the risks. The patient has to balance the pros and cons of sports after THA and to decide the best way for themselves.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160059. Originally published online at www.efortopenreviews.org

Keywords: total hip arthroplasty, sports, implant survival, recommendations

Introduction

In April 2016 I performed a total hip arthroplasty (THA) in one of my former rock climbing partners. Four months later, this patient had a severe climbing accident. A hold broke, and he fell headlong downwards. Fortunately, after a fall of 2 or 3 metres, the trousers of his operated leg were caught by a rock spur, and he was caught upside-down, hanging on his operated hip. This severe accident had no medical consequences, and he continued to climb. For many patients, it is important to continue their sporting activities, and stopping them would mean a considerable loss of lust for life.

The surgeon consulting the patient having a THA is perhaps not a rock climber. He is aware of dislocation and fracture risk as well as survival rates. He feels responsible for his patients, and is also amenable to the law. He would be rather hesitant to give a recommendation to continue rock climbing after THA.

The surgeon wants to base his recommendation on good evidence, but the literature on sports and THA is sparse. There are two main concerns: the risk of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture and survival of the implant. Recently, a Cochrane review1 looked at the evidence of precautions taken to avoid dislocation after THA. Only three articles of low quality could be detected. Sportsmen are in a different condition from average patients. For example with regard to dislocation, it was shown that weakness of abductor muscles may be one of the most important causes for dislocation.2 A sportsman in good shape even performing his sports may be at much less risk of a dislocated hip than elderly people with weak abductors. Bearing in mind hundreds of different sports, with big differences in personal skills, and an important contribution of individual factors, it is a difficult task to establish well-founded knowledge in this area.

This article will deal with dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, implant survival (heat generation, wear, bone quality).

Return to sports

Many patients return to sports without problems. Others do not, because of fear or they are following recommendations of their surgeons. Many resume sports activities after some years, perhaps because they realise they are fit enough and able to do so.

Chatterji et al3 followed 216 patients for two years. THA had a beneficial effect on sports performance. Walking and swimming were resumed within three weeks after operation, tennis after 1.5 and two years. Walking and aqua-aerobics showed an increase, whereas golf and tennis decreased, and jogging was stopped in six out of seven who practised jogging before operation.

In a study of 62 patients,4 29% stopped their activities due to fear of injury, and 26% due to physician recommendation. In 420 patients followed for five years after THA,5 only 36% maintained their sports activities immediately after operation, but 50% resumed their activities within five years, and 14% performed sports more than two hours per week. Wylde et al6 performed a postal survey with 911 patients after THR and 157 after hip resurfacing. In all, 35% and 64 % were active in sports pre-operatively, and 26% and 23%, respectively, were unable to return to sports post-operatively, mainly due to pain, inability to do the required movements, medical advice, or fear of damaging the joint. Williams et al7 evaluated 736 patients with several questionnaires one year after THA (343), hip resurfacing (82), and other arthroplasty procedures. UCLA score as a measure of activity level increased from 4.5 to 6.3. Pre-operatively, only 17% had a UCLA activity score of seven or more, and at one year post-operatively this increased to 43%.

In a study on jogging,8 33 patients went jogging pre-operatively and 23 post-operatively. After a mean follow-up of five years, no patient complained of pain, and no hip showed loosening.

Lefevre et al9 investigated whether judo could be practised after joint replacement. A total of 27 patients had a THA. All patients stopped competitive judo. In total 80% began practising judo again after a mean of four months after surgery. The mean follow-up was nine years. Two revisions due to loosening occurred.

Fouilleron et al10 followed 40 patients practicing running before hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A total of 92% resumed running, with a mean time devoted to running of three hours per week. In a similar study of 50 patients engaged in high impact activities,11 82% resumed their sports at a high level after hip resurfacing. Fisher et al12 studied 117 patients after resurfacing arthroplasty, with a mean age at operation of 54 years. Of these, 87% took part in sporting activities. Preferred sports were golf, swimming, dancing and cycling.

Return to sports is common. The extent is influenced by recommendations and by fear of damaging the artificial joint. The pre-operative activity level plays an important role. Even judo and running are resumed when performed before surgery.

Loads in the hip joint

There is good data on the loads in the hip joint, and their increase during sports (Table 1).

Table 1.

Average peak loads in percentage of bodyweight in the hip joint during different activities. 100% is the force on the individual due to gravity. 240% means 2.4 times the force due to the individual body mass. Numbers were rounded to 10% steps. The values of Van den Bogert 1999 were estimated from graphs

Bergmann 200114 Bergmann 200415 Van den Bogert 199918 Cleather 201619 Giarmatzis 201516 Li 201417
In vivo Calculated (gait lab or accelerometer)
Walking Slow 240% 420%
Normal, operated 240% 480% 330%
Normal, not operated 250% 370%
Fast 250% 540%
Running 520% 910%
Stairs Up 250%
Down 260%
Standing up 190%
Sitting down 160%
Knee bend 140%
Stumbling 870%
Weight Lifting Jumping 550%
Landing 600%
Push Jerking 780%
Jerk Catching 840%
Alpine skiing Short steep 520%
Short flat 400%
Long steep 390%
Long flat 290%
Cross country skiing Classical 320%
Skating 360%

Bergmann et al13 in 1999 described a hip prosthesis for in vivo measurement of joint force and temperature, and the same authors published in 200114 in vivo loads in the hip obtained in four patients, 11 to 33 months after implantation. The results showed that loads in the hip joint can by far exceed bodyweight. Later, the same team also published data on stumbling15 showing that loads up to nine times bodyweight can occur, when several steps are required to regain stability.

Giarmatzis et al16 calculated the hip loads based on gait laboratory data of 20 patients. Peak loads per bodyweight exceeded those of Bergmann by far. Li et al17 used gait laboratory data to calculate hip reaction forces in 38 healthy individuals and 15 asymptomatic THA patients. The asymptomatic THA patients showed comparable values with healthy individuals in the first half of the gait cycle, but 30% lower peak loads at toe-off.

Van den Bogert et al18 used an accelerometer in nine males and calculated hip forces based on these data. Measurements were also performed in intermediate to expert alpine skiers.

Cleather et al19 calculated the hip loads in 12 weightlifters based on a motion capture system and a ground-force plate.

The most reliable results can be expected from direct measurement.14,15 The results of Giarmatzis et al16 seem to be overestimated. The maximum peak loads in sports (weight lifting)19 are in the range of a stumbling, almost falling, patient.15

Heat generation in artificial hip joints

Friction in the bearing and resulting heat generation may endanger implant survival. Bergmann et al20 measured heat in vivo in seven hip prostheses of five patients between ten and 58 months after operation. The peak temperatures in one hip with polyethylene cups rose up to 43.3 °C after an hour of walking (even the rectal temperature rose by 0.7 °C to 37.8 °C), the average peak temperature of all hips after operation was 41.4 °C. In the same patient with bilateral THA and different bearings, the peak temperature was 43.1 °C in the polyethylene cup and 41.4 °C in the alumina ceramic cup. During cycling the average peak force was 45% of the value during walking, and the peak temperatures after cycling were 39.9 °C. Two patients with low peak temperatures had a high body weight but were physically very active. The authors assume that adaptation due to training may increase perfusion rates in soft tissues. Large numbers of load cycles also decrease friction, and this may contribute to lower temperatures.

In a finite element analysis21 these data were used to determine whether temperatures can heat up to a critical level. Implants with a cobalt-chromium head and a polyethylene cup are unfavourable and can elevate the temperature in the synovium to more than 46 °C. The temperature in the femur did not exceed the critical temperature of 45 °C. With different materials lower temperatures can be expected. The cup temperature exceeded this threshold only in two models, ceramic-on-ceramic and high friction, and cobalt-chrome on cobalt-chrome and high friction. In the capsule and synovial fluid, only four models did not heat up to the critical threshold of 42 °C: cobalt-chrome stems (due to a high thermal conductivity of 47 W/mK (watts per meter-kelvin) in comparison with 7.2 for titanium stems), having better lubrication or better heat transfer due to head-cup separation, as well as with increased volume of synovial fluid.

Damm et al22 measured in vivo friction moments during walking in ten patients up to 13 months after operation, and quoted the values at three and 12 months after operation. The gait velocity did not change in the observation period. At three months, peak friction moments for the two extreme values of the gait cycle were 0.17% and 0.23 % BW m (bodyweight metre) respectively, and at 12 months post-operatively 0.11% and 0.17 % BW m. Friction decreased a lot, but with high individual variation, from 100% decreased to 40% increase. This variation may be caused by ‘running-in’ effects of the THA, influenced by individual activity levels and by increase in synovial fluid viscosity.

Repeated loading of the bearing may lead to critically high temperatures in the synovium and joint capsule. This can be influenced by material selection by the surgeon, choosing bearings with low friction, and stems with high thermal conductivity. There are considerable ‘running-in’ effects more pronounced in individuals with higher activity levels leading to lower friction and lower joint temperature.

Implant survival

Gschwend et al23 conducted a comparative trial comparing two cohorts of 50 patients each, ten in each cohort with a bilateral hip, matched for age, sex, height, and bodyweight. One cohort regularly carried out winter sports (alpine skiing and/or cross-county skiing), the other cohort did not. The active cohort performed also other sports like trekking, cycling and swimming. After ten years, 30 and 27 patients remained, respectively. The skiers had a higher wear rate of 2.1 mm compared with 1.5 mm, and very active patients of 3 mm to 4 mm. At ten years, active patients were more satisfied with the operation (28/30 vs 19/27). In active patients, one cup and one stem were loose, and eight patients had osteolytic spots due to wear. No loosening occurred in the non-active cohort, and osteolysis only in three cases.

Ollivier et al24 retrospectively compared 70 patients engaged in high-impact sports with 140 who had low activity levels, after a minimum follow-up of ten years. The average age was 59 years, and average BMI 25. The mean HHS (Harris hip score) improved from 54 to 88 in active patients, and from 55 to 69 in the low-activity group. Polyethylene wear was higher in the active group, being 1.6 mm versus 0.7 mm, respectively. A total of 14/70 implants in the active group and 9/140 in the low-activity group had implant revision. Survival after 15 years was 80% in the high-impact sports group and 93.5% in the low activity group.

In a study in 34 young patients,25 activity was measured with a questionnaire and a pedometer, and linear wear was measured. Average gait cycles and wear were similar to reported values in older patients. The authors used a polyethylene liner and 22 mm or 28 mm cobalt-chrome or alumina ceramic heads. Mean linear wear rate was 0.16 mm/year. Wear rate did not correlate with activity, but the statistical power of the study was low.

Summary

Active patients obviously show higher wear rates associated with a higher risk of osteolysis and implant loosening.

Dislocation

The dislocation rate in the article of Ollivier et al24 mentioned above was 1.4% in the activity group and 1.9% in the low-activity group, with no significant difference. In the above mentioned study of Lefevre et al9 no dislocation occurred in 22 patients who returned to judo after THA.

Kostensalo et al26 determined the risk of dislocation in more than 40 000 hips. The rate of revision for dislocation was 1.74% for 28 mm heads, 0.5% for 32 mm and 36 mm heads, and 0.13% for heads larger than 36 mm. In patients younger than 50 years, the risk was 0.5%, and for those older than 50 years greater than 1%. The authors conclude that the low risk of revision for dislocation does not justify using heads larger than 36 mm, which are associated with higher wear.

Summary

Dislocation is not more frequent in active patients. Surgeons can reduce the risk by using heads up to 36 mm diameter.

Peri-prosthetic fracture

In a register study,27 the rate of periprosthetic fracture was 0.9% five years after primary THA (n = 52 136), and 1.7% after ten years. It is lower in males (0.6% and 1.2%) than in females (1.1% and 2.1%). Increased age is associated with a higher fracture risk.

Mc Grory28 reported a rate of 0.4% of femoral fractures in the Mayo Clinic records. Two of these cases occurred during winter sports.

Bedigrew et al29 measured bone mineral density with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry(DEXA) after THA and hip resurfacing at six weeks, six months, one year, and two years. At six months, there was no decrease in bone density in the femoral neck. Owing to increased bone mineral density in most of the Gruen zones also in THA, the authors believe that patients may return to high-impact activities at six months.

Activity may increase bone mineral density. There is no proof that periprosthetic fractures due to accidents of particular sports occur more often in the presence of a THA. However, the sequelae are more severe after THA.

Recommendations

Most recommendations are based on surveys conducted by surgeons in the United States. Klein et al30 conducted a web questionnaire mainly in members of the American Association of Hip and Knee surgeons (AAHKS) with a 72% response rate. Their results are here categorised as “allowed”, if more than half of the surgeons agreed to allow the particular sport. Healy et al31 performed a current concepts review based on a survey sent to members of the Hip Society (unpublished). The intermediate category in the table (☉) is either “allowed with experience” or “no consensus”. Swanson et al32 distributed a questionnaire to members of the AAHKS and had similar results.

In Europe, Laursen et al33 asked all Danish experts (heads of departments) performing more than 100 prostheses implants per year regarding the most popular sports in the Danish 60 to 69 year-old population (Table 2).

Table 2.

Recommendations based on surveys in surgeons categorising different sports in three categories

Klein 200730 Healy 200831 Swanson 200932 Laursen 201433
‘Low impact’ Walking
Swimming
Golf
Stairclimbing
Aerobics
Stationary bicycle
Road cycling
Cross-country skiing
Hiking
Pilates
Rowing
Dancing *
Bowling
Double tennis
‘Intermediate’ Downhill skiing
Snowboarding
Weightlifting
Badminton
Mountain biking **
Canoe/ kayak
Horseback riding
‘High impact’ Jogging, running
Aerobics
Single tennis
Rock climbing ***
Contact sports

☒ Recommended, allowed, unlimited.

⦸ Not recommended, not allowed, discouraged.

☉ Allowed with experience, with restrictions (eg. tennis only double), occasional.

Contact sports: football, hockey, handball, basketball, baseball, volleyball (intermediate in Healey). Aerobics separated in high and low impact.

*‘Square dancing’, ** ‘Cycling off-road’, ***‘Climbing’.

Surgeons in a country where legal liability plays an important role are inclined to give cautious recommendations. This may explain the differences between recommendation in the US and in Denmark. Recommendations given in the past are often taken as textbook knowledge and are repeated in the next survey without own considerations.

Many activities were categorised as “low impact”, although they can be practised as low as well as “high impact” activities. There is a need for a better characterisation of some sports.

Sports with a high risk of accidents like downhill skiing or horseback riding are qualified as intermediate. Perhaps sports familiar to surgeons are more likely to be recommended.

The confounders (adaptation to sports, different levels of sport performance), the conceptual extension of some sports (weight-lifting: lifting 5 kg weights vs the 200 kg weights), the liability background and sociological factors (textbook knowledge, preferred sports by surgeons) make recommendations based on surveys difficult.

The main risk in high impact sports after THA is implant loosening due to repetitive high contact loads. The 15-year survival in highly active patients seems to be around 80% for bearings used about 20 years ago. The dislocation and fracture risk is low. Surgeons can address the needs of active patients by using bearings with low wear rates, and heads up to 36 mm in diameter.

Footnotes

ICMJE Conflict of Interest Statement: None

Funding

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

References

  • 1. Smith TO, Jepson P, Beswick A, et al. Assistive devices, hip precautions, environmental modifications and training to prevent dislocation and improve function after hip arthroplasty. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;7:CD010815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. García-Rey E, García-Cimbrelo E. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective long-term study. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:484-490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ. Effect of total hip arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:446-449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Delasotta LA, Rangavajjula AV, Porat MD, et al. What are young patients doing after hip reconstruction? J Arthroplasty 2012;27:1518-1525.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Huch K, Müller KA, Stürmer T, et al. Sports activities 5 years after total knee or hip arthroplasty: the Ulm Osteoarthritis Study. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1715-1720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Wylde V, Blom A, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth I. Return to sport after joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2008;90-B:920-923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Predictors of participation in sports after hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:555-561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Abe H, Sakai T, Nishii T, et al. Jogging after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:131-137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Lefevre N, Rousseau D, Bohu Y, Klouche S, Herman S. Return to judo after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21:2889-2894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Fouilleron N, Wavreille G, Endjah N, Girard J. Running activity after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:889-894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Girard J, Miletic B, Deny A, Migaud H, Fouilleron N. Can patients return to high-impact physical activities after hip resurfacing? A prospective study. Int Orthop 2013;37:1019-1024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Fisher NE, Killampalli VV, Kundra RK, et al. Sporting and physical activity following hip resurfacing. Int Orthop 2011;35:977-980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Graichen F, Bergmann G, Rohlmann A. Hip endoprosthesis for in vivo measurement of joint force and temperature. J Biomech 1999;32:1113-1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001;34:859-871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004;389:53-59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Giarmatzis G, Jonkers I, Wesseling M, Van Rossom S, Verschueren S. Loading of hip measured by hip contact forces at different speeds of walking and running. J Bone Miner Res 2015;30:1431-1440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Li J, Redmond AC, Jin Z, et al. Hip contact forces in asymptomatic total hip replacement patients differ from normal healthy individuals: implications for preclinical testing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2014;29:747-751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. van den Bogert AJ, Read L, Nigg BM. An analysis of hip joint loading during walking, running, and skiing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31:131-142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE, Bull AM. Hip and knee joint loading during vertical jumping and push jerking. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2013;28:98-103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Verdonschot N, van Lenthe GH. Frictional heating of total hip implants. Part 2: finite element study. J Biomech 2001;34:429-435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001;34:859-871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Damm P, Bender A, Bergmann G. Postoperative changes in in vivo measured friction in total hip joint prosthesis during walking. PLoS One 2015;10:e0120438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Gschwend N, Frei T, Morscher E, Nigg B, Loehr J. Alpine and cross-country skiing after total hip replacement: 2 cohorts of 50 patients each, one active, the other inactive in skiing, followed for 5-10 years. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:243-249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Ollivier M, Frey S, Parratte S, Flecher X, Argenson JN. Does impact sport activity influence total hip arthroplasty durability? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:3060-3066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Sechriest VF, II, Kyle RF, Marek DJ, et al. Activity level in young patients with primary total hip arthroplasty: a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:39-47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kostensalo I, Junnila M, Virolainen P, et al. Effect of femoral head size on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of 42,379 primary procedures from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2013;84:342-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Meek RMD, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR. The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2011;93-B:96-101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. McGrory BJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty occurring in winter activities: report of two cases. J Surg Orthop Adv 2004;13:119-123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Bedigrew KM, Ruh EL, Zhang Q, et al. 2011 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: when to release patients to high-impact activities after hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:299-306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Klein GR, Levine BR, Hozack WJ, et al. Return to athletic activity after total hip arthroplasty. Consensus guidelines based on a survey of the Hip Society and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:171-175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Healy WL, Sharma S, Schwartz B, Iorio R. Athletic activity after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2008;90-A:2245-2252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Swanson EA, Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ. Activity recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a survey of the American Association for Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:120-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Laursen MK, Andersen JB, Andersen MM, Simonsen OH, Laursen MB. Danish surgeons allow the most athletic activities after total hip and knee replacement. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24:1571-1577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFORT Open Reviews are provided here courtesy of Bioscientifica Ltd.

RESOURCES